A Level ICT a waste of time?
Mark Thomas
admissions tutor about the value of A level ICT.
I have just been doing some research for the AQA Module 4 'IT in
Organisations' section 13.2, searching for articles on
www.Computing.co.uk
I have been struck by the repeated message that it isn't programming
skills that are of value (jobs in this area are rapidly flowing
overseas http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1157635) but the ability
to understand IT and business processes that count.
e.g.
Look inwards before you look outwards. (Finkelstein on requirements
engineering)
http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1155567
You can connect IT and the boardroom
http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1157454
Your future is in business skills:
http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1158145
Now I might be missing something but A Level ICT, certainly the AQA
spec, is all about precisely this - how to solve business problems
using ICT.
There was even one comment that we should be worried about the rapidly
declining popularity of Computing A Level, as the UK doesn't appear to
be filling this perceive IT/business skills gap - without a mention of
ICT A Level which appears to meet this need. Are ICT A numbers
increasing?
http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1157635
As IT teachers, rather than computing teachers, we don't seem to be
getting the message about the value of what we are doing across.
Any views?
Mark Thomas
Michael Saunby
"Mark Thomas" <m.tho...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2fb7b718.04092...@posting.google.com...
> Some of you may remember some adverse comments from a certain
> admissions tutor about the value of A level ICT.
>
> I have just been doing some research for the AQA Module 4 'IT in
> Organisations' section 13.2, searching for articles on
> www.Computing.co.uk
>
> I have been struck by the repeated message that it isn't programming
> skills that are of value (jobs in this area are rapidly flowing
> overseas http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1157635) but the ability
> to understand IT and business processes that count.
>
I'll not disagree with this - but .....
What I believe business also wants is rather more maturity than you're
likely to get from A level students. Much as you wouldn't expect an A
level economics student to be immediately in demand from the top banks.
What they want is graduates, and for that you need to get your students
into university. The answer perhaps is to steer them towards business
studies rather than computer science, unless they're also expert in
mathematics.
Something you might want to consider is how many ICT teachers are also
successful business people in their own right, or perhaps were before they
decided to take early retirement. If you're not convinced that your own
knowledge of ICT could lead to a successful business career then it's a bit
much to imagine that it might do so for your students.
Michael Saunby
Mark Thomas
>
> What I believe business also wants is rather more maturity than you're
> likely to get from A level students. Much as you wouldn't expect an A
> level economics student to be immediately in demand from the top banks.
> What they want is graduates, and for that you need to get your students
> into university. The answer perhaps is to steer them towards business
> studies rather than computer science, unless they're also expert in
> mathematics.
>
> Something you might want to consider is how many ICT teachers are also
> successful business people in their own right, or perhaps were before they
> decided to take early retirement. If you're not convinced that your own
> knowledge of ICT could lead to a successful business career then it's a bit
> much to imagine that it might do so for your students.
>
> Michael Saunby
Perhaps the London Ambulance Service fiasco was an unusually bad case
but it does paint a picture of a general 'system illiteracy' amongst
those responsible. Had those responsible taken A level ICT then they
would have, at the least, known that they weren't being wise.
If we A level ICT teachers are turning out those destined for the
various professions with an appreciation of standards, of requirements
analysis, of the need to test etc then I think we are doing a good job
- unless, as you seem to suggest (but which isn't suggested by the LAS
etc) that such theoretical knowledge is of no value unless proven in
business.
Having worked in business myself, albeit briefly, I don't think
education is such a very different enterprise. Examples of
inefficient information flows, resistance to change, a failure to
appreciate the value of requirements analysis and poor leadership etc
etc - can readily be experienced first hand in schools.
But if appreciating the need to overcome these isn't what leads to
business success then enlighten me.
Michael Saunby
> > I'll not disagree with this - but .....
> >
> > What I believe business also wants is rather more maturity than you're
> > likely to get from A level students. Much as you wouldn't expect an A
> > level economics student to be immediately in demand from the top banks.
> > What they want is graduates, and for that you need to get your students
> > into university. The answer perhaps is to steer them towards business
> > studies rather than computer science, unless they're also expert in
> > mathematics.
> >
> > Something you might want to consider is how many ICT teachers are also
> > successful business people in their own right, or perhaps were before
they
> > decided to take early retirement. If you're not convinced that your
own
> > knowledge of ICT could lead to a successful business career then it's a
bit
> > much to imagine that it might do so for your students.
> >
> > Michael Saunby
>
> Perhaps the London Ambulance Service fiasco was an unusually bad case
> but it does paint a picture of a general 'system illiteracy' amongst
> those responsible. Had those responsible taken A level ICT then they
> would have, at the least, known that they weren't being wise.
Now your being daft. To suggest the having, or not having A level ICT,
would make any difference at that sort of level is just silly. Although I
believe that project was managed by a public body, if it had been a
commercial firm doing the work the person leading the project would be
earning a six figure salary and managing the work of dozens of experienced
graduate programmers. Not something that A level ICT immediately perpares
a person for.
Having just finished working on a 3 project with just half a dozen coders
which ended up over a million overspent I'm very aware that things don't
all go wrong at once, they go a little bit wrong each day. Spotting that,
and knowing what to actually do about it, isn't trivial.
>
> If we A level ICT teachers are turning out those destined for the
> various professions with an appreciation of standards, of requirements
> analysis, of the need to test etc then I think we are doing a good job
> - unless, as you seem to suggest (but which isn't suggested by the LAS
> etc) that such theoretical knowledge is of no value unless proven in
> business.
Indeed, some of them may well be destined for such work, but none of them
will be ready for several years. As a result of the London Ambulance
project, air traffic control, passports, and other less well know public IT
projects it's likely that to manage such projects in future will require
rather more than being a senior civil servants with a project management
qualification and the BCS are pushing hard to make being a Chartered
engineer a requirement for such work. Something I agree with, but then I
would. If that happens then you've still got to map out a route by which
your A level ICT students can achieve CEng, probably at about age 25 -
which would actually be quite good going, I was 30 when I qualified.
>
> Having worked in business myself, albeit briefly, I don't think
> education is such a very different enterprise. Examples of
> inefficient information flows, resistance to change, a failure to
> appreciate the value of requirements analysis and poor leadership etc
> etc - can readily be experienced first hand in schools.
Sure, but it's rather more effective to teach using examples of best
practice rather than worst.
>
> But if appreciating the need to overcome these isn't what leads to
> business success then enlighten me.
You'll still need coders to write the code, and all the rest. A team of
people all with A level ICT would be as much use as a team of hairdressers.
You need a mix of skills.
Michael Saunby
Albrow SJ
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:cj3lkk$cme$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Mark Thomas" <m.tho...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:2fb7b718.0409...@posting.google.com...
> > > I'll not disagree with this - but .....
> > education is such a very different enterprise. Examples of
> > inefficient information flows, resistance to change, a failure to
> > appreciate the value of requirements analysis and poor leadership etc
> > etc - can readily be experienced first hand in schools.
>
> Sure, but it's rather more effective to teach using examples of best
> practice rather than worst.
>
> >
> > But if appreciating the need to overcome these isn't what leads to
> > business success then enlighten me.
>
> You'll still need coders to write the code, and all the rest. A team of
> people all with A level ICT would be as much use as a team of
hairdressers.
> You need a mix of skills.
Yes and no 'identify where the schools IT department failed miserably in
implementing the new network' makes them put into practice what they have
learnt, they will also be able to draw on user examples.
Sam
>
> Michael Saunby
>
>
---
If you have any queries regarding this email please contact Horshamnet on
08708811293.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 24/09/2004
Ian
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:cj3lkk$cme$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Mark Thomas" <m.tho...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:2fb7b718.0409...@posting.google.com...
>> > > I'll not disagree with this - but .....
>
>> > education is such a very different enterprise. Examples of
>> > inefficient information flows, resistance to change, a failure to
>> > appreciate the value of requirements analysis and poor leadership etc
>> > etc - can readily be experienced first hand in schools.
>>
>> Sure, but it's rather more effective to teach using examples of best
>> practice rather than worst.
>>
>>
>> > But if appreciating the need to overcome these isn't what leads to
>> > business success then enlighten me.
>>
>> You'll still need coders to write the code, and all the rest. A team
>> of people all with A level ICT would be as much use as a team of
> hairdressers.
>> You need a mix of skills.
>
> Yes and no 'identify where the schools IT department failed miserably in
> implementing the new network' makes them put into practice what they
> have learnt, they will also be able to draw on user examples.
There is still a lot of confusion about what ICT/computing is right from
the top. The specialist schools programme has a classification called
maths and computing. By title, any bids for this status that are focussed
on ICT should fail. The emphasis would lead one to believe that the DfES
want to encourage more programming and "lower level" understanding of
technology but the fact is that most maths and computing schools are
actually maths and ICT schools focussed on interactive whiteboards and
virtual learning environments. As an ex-physics teacher now in business,
it does concern me that anything at the lower more mathematical end of
technology is seen as "unnecessary difficult stuff for geeks". In fact the
reason we teach physics in schools rather than say engineering is a
practical one. "Engineering" is too diverse to be taught meaningfully
pre-16 in a braod and balanced curriculum. Yes we can draw on engineering
examples and applications in good physics lessons but the fundamental
knowledge and concepts that have maximum transfer to all engineering are
related to maths and physics. The same is true of ICT. Even if you narrow
ICT down to "business", which business? Of course you can say most people
use a WP so we'll teach that tool but then we don't have A levels in
handwriting so why do we need them in WP? And we do have A levels/AVCE in
Business Studies anyway.
Fundamental understanding of how and why things are as they are is what
separates an educated person from an uneducated person. Learning technical
procedures is relatively easy, understanding them so that they can be
applied and modified for improvement and transferred to similar and even
very different circumstances is much more difficult. Unfortunatley human
nature often results in the line of least resistance.
--
IanL
ZMS Ltd - Education Management Consultants
WWW.thelearningmachine.co.uk
WWW.theINGOTs.org
John Cartmell
<ian....@zmsl.takemeout.com> wrote:
> Fundamental understanding of how and why things are as they are is what
> separates an educated person from an uneducated person. Learning
> technical procedures is relatively easy, understanding them so that they
> can be applied and modified for improvement and transferred to similar
> and even very different circumstances is much more difficult.
And that understanding *is* the Technology curriculum until it is
undermined by practically everyone involved. It's the subject I was
prepared to teach but, except for a very brief time, never allowed to
teach.
> Unfortunatley human nature often results in the line of least resistance.
That's what education is supposed to put right.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Steve Rochford
> admissions tutor about the value of A level ICT.
I think this rather mis-represents his point of view. I've never thought
that he meant that A Level ICT is not a good subject but rather that it's
not a good introduction for a computer science degree - two very different
statements.
--
Steve Rochford
IT Support Manager, The College of North West London
Michael Saunby
"Ian" <ian....@zmsl.takemeout.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.26....@zmsl.takemeout.com...
As a professional "geek" I'd say that what defines a geek, rather than
someone choosing IT over becoming a gas fitter, is that they have a love of
technology, not a desire to make money. Although it might have changed a
bit in the last 20+ years since I was at school I suspect that some school
teachers still consider engineering to be something that might suit those
who lack the intelect to become teachers - which just goes to show why they
became teachers :-)
So it's not about the needs of engineering, but the need for teachers to
believe, against all available evidence, that they are better at maths and
science than those who actually use it in the field.
> reason we teach physics in schools rather than say engineering is a
> practical one. "Engineering" is too diverse to be taught meaningfully
> pre-16 in a braod and balanced curriculum. Yes we can draw on engineering
> examples and applications in good physics lessons but the fundamental
> knowledge and concepts that have maximum transfer to all engineering are
> related to maths and physics. The same is true of ICT. Even if you narrow
I suspect you're "post rationalising" this. It might be better to say that
engineering education builds on the maths and science taught in schools,
because that's what's taught in schools.
The most significant contributions to maths and science have all resulted
from the need to solve real problems. It wasn't discovered that maths
could be used to solve problems, rather maths was constructed, developed,
and improved to achieve engineering outcomes. It might be rather easier
for students, and teachers, to appreciate differential equations, fourier
transforms, and the rest if the reasons for the development were known,
rather than these being seen as just applications. Mathematics does not
exist for its own sake.
Of course there is some history of pretending that science and mathematics
are like literature, music, etc. in existing for their own sake. But this
was simply a device used by the gentleman engineers of the past, who could
claim what they were doing was an apporoporiate pursuit for a gentleman and
that they were not participating in a trade. I'd hoped we had rather got
beyond that by now - though of course there are a few academics who might
still believe that it is only really appropriate to use scientific methods
to inverstigate aspects of the natural world and not the analysis of modern
artifacts. But such folks, like the materials they study, are generally
dinosaurs.
> ICT down to "business", which business? Of course you can say most people
> use a WP so we'll teach that tool but then we don't have A levels in
> handwriting so why do we need them in WP? And we do have A levels/AVCE in
> Business Studies anyway.
Which seems to be about studying business (like the science thing perhaps),
rather than developing business skills. But then some teachers will argue
that education isn't about training youngsters for employment.
>
> Fundamental understanding of how and why things are as they are is what
> separates an educated person from an uneducated person. Learning
> technical
Indeed, but recongising that such techniques can, and should, be applied to
the things we make, the way we are governed, and the rest is still not
universally recognised. Before Smeaton the analysis for machines and
buildings in a scientific manner was almost unheard of. Instead
intellectuals would simply argue the case for one way of doing things
rather than another as politicians might. The development of government
strategy using evidence is something that is only slowly starting to
develop now, so we are still living in an age where the knowledge developed
at the start of the Industrial Revolution is being passed from one domain
to another.
> procedures is relatively easy, understanding them so that they can be
> applied and modified for improvement and transferred to similar and even
> very different circumstances is much more difficult. Unfortunatley human
> nature often results in the line of least resistance.
>
Some resistance, but a great deal of ignorance too.
Michael Saunby
Mark Thomas
> implementing the new network' makes them put into practice what they have
> learnt, they will also be able to draw on user examples.
>
> Sam
implements/upgrades networks but network managers. I am sure that
many of them are well qualified and understand the need for standards,
consultation etc etc. Others aren't and make it up as they go along,
sometimes learning from their mistakes, sometimes not, while the IT
Dept reflects upon the value of the principles that they are teaching
at A level.
Michael Saunby
So do schools demand A level ICT (or better) for network managers? And are
A level ICT (or better) qualified network managers the good ones, or the
bad ones?
My own experience of working in education (well Reading University, but
it's similar) was that such organisations are probably some of the worst in
valuing qualifications, and instead recruit what appear to be "clever"
people, as though cleverness can somehow fix a network. Are secondary
schools any better? i.e. do they stick to their guns and demand formal IT
qualifications, or are the formal qualifications they deliver something for
other employers in other places?
Michael Saunby
Mark Thomas
> > but it does paint a picture of a general 'system illiteracy' amongst
> > those responsible. Had those responsible taken A level ICT then they
> > would have, at the least, known that they weren't being wise.
>
> Now your being daft. To suggest the having, or not having A level ICT,
> would make any difference at that sort of level is just silly. Although I
> believe that project was managed by a public body, if it had been a
> commercial firm doing the work the person leading the project would be
> earning a six figure salary and managing the work of dozens of experienced
> graduate programmers. Not something that A level ICT immediately perpares
> a person for.
>
procurement but that had the professionals involved, perhaps in their
30s/40s, been systems literate (as they would have been had they done
ICT A level earlier in their lives) then they would have been aware of
the danger of what they were doing. The lady responsible for the
procurement, by the accounts I have read, didn't have a clue. Was the
commercial company involved, Systems Options? Despite being
'commercial' they were well out of their depth. Take a look at the
specification of the A level on www.aqa.org.uk to see the ground
covered.
The point of the several articles, that I linked, was that programming
is increasingly going to go offshore and that our young people need to
gain skills not in coding but in requirements analysis etc. This is
precisely what ICT A level starts them on - and this wasn't being
recognised by 'Computing'.
> Having just finished working on a 3 project with just half a dozen coders
> which ended up over a million overspent I'm very aware that things don't
> all go wrong at once, they go a little bit wrong each day. Spotting that,
> and knowing what to actually do about it, isn't trivial.
>
But, help me here, aren't many of the things that go wrong picked up
by the formal methods such as SSADM or RAD? I am not suggesting for a
moment that knowing the basic theory of IT systems can in anyway
replace 10 or 20 years experience in systems development but that
knowing the theory is a good starting point in an IT career or in a
business career - at least you will know what people are talking
about.
> rather more than being a senior civil servants with a project management
> qualification and the BCS are pushing hard to make being a Chartered
> engineer a requirement for such work. Something I agree with, but then I
> would. If that happens then you've still got to map out a route by which
> your A level ICT students can achieve CEng, probably at about age 25 -
> which would actually be quite good going, I was 30 when I qualified.
>
It would be interesting to see such a route charted. I assume that
the BCS must have had some input into the drafting of the ICT A level
specifications/sylabii and that they weren't just cobbled together by
school teachers. Yet I am surprised that Computing (the voice piece
of the BCS?) seems blissfully unaware of the ICT A Level and its
content.
> Sure, but it's rather more effective to teach using examples of
best
> practice rather than worst.
Of course but its really good to be able to have material readily to
hand that illustrates the need for such good engineering practice.
> You'll still need coders to write the code, and all the rest. A team of
> people all with A level ICT would be as much use as a team of hairdressers.
> You need a mix of skills.
But, as I said above, surely the writing is on the wall for the
coders? Its the analysts and strategists that are needed - and a
career in this starts with GCSE and A level ICT. You can try your
luck with hairdressers if you like but kids who have done their A
level project, if taught well, will be, I would contend, a good way
down the line. As Andrew Virnuls commented, a year or so ago, 2nd
year University Computing Science students were just reaching the
stage that he had taken them to at A level! See below:
Or is their some 'magic' that we are missing concerning requirements
analysis and the like? In my, albeit limited, experience most
(obviously not all) business systems are relatively simple list
processing tasks. You select, you sort, you calculate. You make sure
that the right stuff goes in so that the right stuff comes out. You
make sure you have done your process analysis and entity and data flow
modelling so that you can produce a clean interface.
Is there something more to IT than what can be gleaned from the text
books?
>
> Michael Saunby
Samsonknight
"Harry Snoddon" <H Snoddon> wrote in message
news:focbl0t5v9e1q2idm...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Sep 2004 09:40:48 -0700, m.tho...@ntlworld.com (Mark Thomas)
> to the polyversities and Tony Blair reaching his target of 50% going
> to uni. This is what is happening turning all these 'hobby' subjects
> into degree courses, such as ceramics etc.
>
Fair enough, but what about those students that were "actually" told by
career advicers that ICT was relevent for *computer science* or any other
computer type of course and also do not want to goto a polyversities. I.E.
Me . It is a bit unfair working your arse off then finding out in the start
of the A2 course that ICT was "mickey mouse". Anyway, I guess at my former
6th form if I had the choice between computing and ICT , I would have chosen
computing - but I never :(
If having A-level ICT is a massive issue for top universities - I think that
they should state it in their prospectivies under entry requirements for the
subject (in my case computer science) - like they would do with general
studies. I have looked at a few good unis , and some promote having it.
Tina Eager
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
> > I suppose its not a bad subject to help cater for the students going
> > to the polyversities and Tony Blair reaching his target of 50% going
> > to uni. This is what is happening turning all these 'hobby' subjects
> > into degree courses, such as ceramics etc.
>
Although of course at Poly they were HND subjects. People could do them
by a variety of methods, including day release an dso on. Except of
course now they are universities and not polytechnics they can't do that
any more - everything has to be a degree.
>
>
> Fair enough, but what about those students that were "actually" told by
> career advicers that ICT was relevent for *computer science* or any other
> computer type of course and also do not want to goto a polyversities. I.E.
> Me . It is a bit unfair working your arse off then finding out in the start
> of the A2 course that ICT was "mickey mouse". Anyway, I guess at my former
> 6th form if I had the choice between computing and ICT , I would have chosen
> computing - but I never :(
>
> If having A-level ICT is a massive issue for top universities - I think that
> they should state it in their prospectivies under entry requirements for the
> subject (in my case computer science) - like they would do with general
> studies. I have looked at a few good unis , and some promote having it.
>
>
How can they do that? Lots of schools don't offer ICT (even more don't
offer Computing). If you are looking for prospective students it doesn't
make sense to eliminate a huge proportion of your prospective applicants
by making entry requirements they can't achieve.
--
Tina Eager
Thomas
> My own experience of working in education (well Reading University,
> but it's similar) was that such organisations are probably some of
> the worst in valuing qualifications, and instead recruit what appear
> to be "clever" people, as though cleverness can somehow fix a
> network. Are secondary schools any better? i.e. do they stick to
> their guns and demand formal IT qualifications, or are the formal
> qualifications they deliver something for other employers in other
> places?
Just out of interest, what qualifications would you consider to be
appropriate for becoming a school network manager?
Tom
Samsonknight
"Tina Eager" <nos...@tavi.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W6UuQz2oisk0-p...@tikki.tavi.co.uk...
Well mine did, and from talking to many other students my age that did goto
a *state school*, they also did offer ICT.
>If you are looking for prospective students it doesn't
> make sense to eliminate a huge proportion of your prospective applicants
> by making entry requirements they can't achieve.
>
I agree with that point, very few students actually do meet the entry
requirements. From my 6th form I would say that only 10% of students did
meet the entry requirements with As and Bs, the others - well they did pass
but with lowish grades D and Es.
> --
> Tina Eager
>
Kev Crocombe
Thomas <m.tho...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>> rather more than being a senior civil servants with a project management
>> qualification and the BCS are pushing hard to make being a Chartered
>> engineer a requirement for such work. Something I agree with, but then I
>> would. If that happens then you've still got to map out a route by which
>> your A level ICT students can achieve CEng, probably at about age 25 -
>> which would actually be quite good going, I was 30 when I qualified.
>>
>It would be interesting to see such a route charted. I assume that
>the BCS must have had some input into the drafting of the ICT A level
>specifications/sylabii and that they weren't just cobbled together by
>school teachers. Yet I am surprised that Computing (the voice piece
>of the BCS?) seems blissfully unaware of the ICT A Level and its
>content.
>
I reckon IT is in a similar position to civil engineering back in the
mid 19th century - lots of big projects have been commissioned - some
successful, some unmitigated disasters, where anyone off the street who
talks the talk can come up with a plan for a project, even if they don't
know their ars3 from their elbow.
The difference is that the big engineering failures usually led to a
loss of life and the situation had to be sorted out with a mandatory
qualification level for engineering. In IT - usually its just lost money
and time - so the need for change isn't seen as so pressing.
Compulsory involvement of a chartered IT specialist would imho at least
reduce the number of embarrassing project failures that you see.
--
***********************************************************************
I am a phagocyte in the the bloodstream of the body politic
***********************************************************************
Michael Saunby
"Thomas" <nos...@notever.not> wrote in message
news:ZVG5d.7770$__5....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Is it any different from being a network manager anywhere else? If not
then I expect what is usually required is "experience" (always) and those
CCNA/CCNE things or similar. But I've never had to produce a job spec for
such a person so I'm not really the person to ask. My question was really
about whether schools actually have a spec for such posts. They're bound
to for teaching posts, so why not other posts?
If it is different to other places then it might be because the support
available from elsewhere, LEA?, and bits missing from the job,
procurement?, project management?, make it less demanding than in other
sectors.
Michael Saunby
Mark Thomas
> > Some of you may remember some adverse comments from a certain
> > admissions tutor about the value of A level ICT.
>
> I think this rather mis-represents his point of view. I've never thought
> that he meant that A Level ICT is not a good subject but rather that it's
> not a good introduction for a computer science degree - two very different
> statements.
That's a fair point.
A good Maths A level indicates the ability to manipulate abstract
cognitive models - which could be indicative of the mental power
needed for systems modelling etc. Perhaps the issue here is whether
or not we are judging the top A Level ICT grades by the right
criteria?
I would still question why it is that millions are being paid to
teachers to deliver A Level ICT if it:
a) doesn't provide a good basis for *some* IT related university
course
b) doesn't help to solve the IT skills gap identified in the
references i.e. we need IT/business strategists not programmers
Doug Deedman
On 26-Sep-2004, m.tho...@ntlworld.com (Mark Thomas) wrote:
> The point of the several articles, that I linked, was that programming
> is increasingly going to go offshore and that our young people need to
> gain skills not in coding but in requirements analysis etc. This is
> precisely what ICT A level starts them on - and this wasn't being
> recognised by 'Computing'.
Good analysis leading to a correct specification is, of course, essential,
but so is the production of maintainable code that accurately matches this
specification. Are you really suggesting that a successful project is likely
to be the result from formally separating software development in this way?
Is a proper match between requirements and the resulting system likely from
such an approach? Will subsequent modified requirements be easy to
implement? If a system description is to be of any value after its first
translation into program code, any creeping divergence between specification
and implementation must be avoided. The essential mapping between the two
this demands suggests seamless development, not the fractured process you
imply here.
--
Doug Deedman
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Mark Thomas
> the top. The specialist schools programme has a classification called
> maths and computing. By title, any bids for this status that are focussed
> Fundamental understanding of how and why things are as they are is what
> separates an educated person from an uneducated person. Learning technical
> procedures is relatively easy, understanding them so that they can be
> applied and modified for improvement and transferred to similar and even
> very different circumstances is much more difficult. Unfortunatley human
> nature often results in the line of least resistance.
The place in which engineering gets taught in schools is biology - or
as it should be known: 'Organic systems engineering (mainly done in
reverse but just starting to go the other way (genetic engineering
etc))'.
Biology is the science that is applied chemistry, physics, maths and
systems engineering. It is the study of the most sophisticated
engineering systems yet known. A fly's brain packs a fair bit of
avionics - and it can look after itself. Biology = the study of
nested, hierarchical systems. Who wrote that book that worked out
that every system has 20 components and used Holland and a cell as
examples?
ICT A Level could be better named 'Information Systems Engineering'.
Perhaps that would help it to attract a better status in the
profession?
It isn't about the low level nitty gritty of how you code etc but
about the higher level need to specify requirements that match the
requirements of the end-user.
I think every pupil studying IT should be made of aware of the way
code works - just as you don't know your biology until you can see the
system from molecule/energy transfer through to ecosystem, so you can
you be trully confident as an IS engineer if you don't appreciate
coding. However, as has been indicated, you aren't going to get paid
for coding in the UK.
Michael Saunby
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:<cj3lkk$cme$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> > Perhaps the London Ambulance Service fiasco was an unusually bad case
>> > but it does paint a picture of a general 'system illiteracy' amongst
>> > those responsible. Had those responsible taken A level ICT then they
>> > would have, at the least, known that they weren't being wise.
>>
>> Now your being daft. To suggest the having, or not having A level ICT,
>> would make any difference at that sort of level is just silly. Although
>> I
>> believe that project was managed by a public body, if it had been a
>> commercial firm doing the work the person leading the project would be
>> earning a six figure salary and managing the work of dozens of
>> experienced
>> graduate programmers. Not something that A level ICT immediately
>> perpares
>> a person for.
>>
> Am I? I am not suggesting that 18 year olds step into system
> procurement but that had the professionals involved, perhaps in their
> 30s/40s, been systems literate (as they would have been had they done
> ICT A level earlier in their lives) then they would have been aware of
> the danger of what they were doing. The lady responsible for the
Which in time we'll find out. At present those in such positions didn't
have the option. Which in itself should be a slight concern for those
developing such A levels because managers tend to be conservative and
recruit in their own image.
> procurement, by the accounts I have read, didn't have a clue. Was the
> commercial company involved, Systems Options? Despite being
> 'commercial' they were well out of their depth. Take a look at the
> specification of the A level on www.aqa.org.uk to see the ground
> covered.
>
I did take a look a couple of years ago, and I will take another soon. The
fact that many civil servants are quite clueless is well known and hard to
resolve. It's one reason why our health service, etc. is so damned
expensive.
> The point of the several articles, that I linked, was that programming
> is increasingly going to go offshore and that our young people need to
> gain skills not in coding but in requirements analysis etc. This is
> precisely what ICT A level starts them on - and this wasn't being
> recognised by 'Computing'.
>
>> Having just finished working on a 3 project with just half a dozen
>> coders
>> which ended up over a million overspent I'm very aware that things don't
>> all go wrong at once, they go a little bit wrong each day. Spotting
>> that,
>> and knowing what to actually do about it, isn't trivial.
>>
> But, help me here, aren't many of the things that go wrong picked up
> by the formal methods such as SSADM or RAD? I am not suggesting for a
Would have been. The fact that we both know what SSADM and RAD mean just
shows our age (or the agae of the books you've read). SSADM was "the latest
thing", what 20 years ago? and RAD more than 10 year ago. Today the talk
will be of Rational, UML, Agile methods, even XP (Extreme Programming). In
reality there is often little formalisation of the development of entire
systems, instead formal approaches are applied to the management of
projects - to keep them within spec, budget, etc.
> moment that knowing the basic theory of IT systems can in anyway
> replace 10 or 20 years experience in systems development but that
> knowing the theory is a good starting point in an IT career or in a
> business career - at least you will know what people are talking
> about.
But the theory changes, well develops, quite quickly. A sound knowledge of
OOP might still be of value in 10 years time, but you can't be sure.
>
>> rather more than being a senior civil servants with a project management
>> qualification and the BCS are pushing hard to make being a Chartered
>> engineer a requirement for such work. Something I agree with, but then
>> I
>> would. If that happens then you've still got to map out a route by
>> which
>> your A level ICT students can achieve CEng, probably at about age 25 -
>> which would actually be quite good going, I was 30 when I qualified.
>>
> It would be interesting to see such a route charted. I assume that
> the BCS must have had some input into the drafting of the ICT A level
> specifications/sylabii and that they weren't just cobbled together by
> school teachers. Yet I am surprised that Computing (the voice piece
> of the BCS?) seems blissfully unaware of the ICT A Level and its
> content.
>
The role of 18 year olds in IT is generally not an issue for the BCS or
employers. They deal with mostly with graduates.
There have always been two routes to CEng in all disciplines, one is
through a degree in the subject, the other though recorded practical
experience and personal development. It may be that A level ICT has more
use in this second route.
> > Sure, but it's rather more effective to teach using examples of
> best
>> practice rather than worst.
>
> Of course but its really good to be able to have material readily to
> hand that illustrates the need for such good engineering practice.
>
>> You'll still need coders to write the code, and all the rest. A team of
>> people all with A level ICT would be as much use as a team of
>> hairdressers.
>> You need a mix of skills.
>
> But, as I said above, surely the writing is on the wall for the
> coders? Its the analysts and strategists that are needed - and a
Safety critical, business critical, security sensitive, or just "need it
today", stull will most likely always be done in house.
> career in this starts with GCSE and A level ICT. You can try your
> luck with hairdressers if you like but kids who have done their A
> level project, if taught well, will be, I would contend, a good way
> down the line. As Andrew Virnuls commented, a year or so ago, 2nd
> year University Computing Science students were just reaching the
> stage that he had taken them to at A level! See below:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=virnuls+second+year+ICT++level+university&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=uk.education.schools-it&selm=aoufia%24elj%241%40newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk&rnum=2
>
> Or is their some 'magic' that we are missing concerning requirements
> analysis and the like? In my, albeit limited, experience most
> (obviously not all) business systems are relatively simple list
> processing tasks. You select, you sort, you calculate. You make sure
> that the right stuff goes in so that the right stuff comes out. You
> make sure you have done your process analysis and entity and data flow
> modelling so that you can produce a clean interface.
>
> Is there something more to IT than what can be gleaned from the text
> books?
>
Oh yes. For coding, reading and modifying code is something that everyone
with a real interest in IT should be doing today. There's so much open
source code today, that to ignore it, would be very foolish indeed.
Can you imagine what it would be like if your only experience of the
Internet was what you'd read about it?
Though interestingly many of the talented Indian programmers had no
exposure to IT before 18. They're just very good mathematicians! So it's
certainly possible to develop talent using theory alone; but it might not
suit everyone.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
>
> b) doesn't help to solve the IT skills gap identified in the
> references i.e. we need IT/business strategists not programmers
Skills gaps are just that - gaps. We need large numbers of programmers
too, it's just that there isn't a large gap between supply and demand.
c.f. maths teachers and MFL teachers.
Michael Saunby
Mark Thomas
Harry snodden?
> > I suppose its not a bad subject to help cater for the students going
> > to the polyversities and Tony Blair reaching his target of 50% going
> > to uni. This is what is happening turning all these 'hobby' subjects
> > into degree courses, such as ceramics etc.
> >
> Fair enough, but what about those students that were "actually" told by
> career advicers that ICT was relevent for *computer science* or any other
> computer type of course and also do not want to goto a polyversities. I.E.
> Me . It is a bit unfair working your arse off then finding out in the start
> of the A2 course that ICT was "mickey mouse". Anyway, I guess at my former
> 6th form if I had the choice between computing and ICT , I would have chosen
> computing - but I never :(
>
I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
grade in (much harder than Maths!). This may be either because the
standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
> If having A-level ICT is a massive issue for top universities - I think that
> they should state it in their prospectivies under entry requirements for the
> subject (in my case computer science) - like they would do with general
> studies. I have looked at a few good unis , and some promote having it.
Which ones?
Michael Saunby
> news:<cj73r3> >
>
> Harry snodden?
>> > I suppose its not a bad subject to help cater for the students going
>> > to the polyversities and Tony Blair reaching his target of 50% going
>> > to uni. This is what is happening turning all these 'hobby' subjects
>> > into degree courses, such as ceramics etc.
>> >
>
>> Fair enough, but what about those students that were "actually" told by
>> career advicers that ICT was relevent for *computer science* or any
>> other
>> computer type of course and also do not want to goto a polyversities.
>> I.E.
>> Me . It is a bit unfair working your arse off then finding out in the
>> start
>> of the A2 course that ICT was "mickey mouse". Anyway, I guess at my
>> former
>> 6th form if I had the choice between computing and ICT , I would have
>> chosen
>> computing - but I never :(
>>
>
> I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
Particularly when "ceramics" was also given as an example. Much of the
wealth of the UK was built on the output of the potteries, and even today
you're still more likely to piss in a ceramic toilet than a stainless steel
one.
Having said that, with degrees now available in such wide ranging subjects,
including traditional diversions such as history of art and archaeology
(never something that contributed to the economy) and surfing (only
significant in a very few places) it's perhaps best to see the range of
available courses as existing to allow the idle classes to demonstrate
where their talent lies, rather than developing skills needed to join a
profession.
Michael Saunby
Stuart Williams
m.tho...@ntlworld.com says...
> >
>
> I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
> not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
> that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
> incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
> grade in (much harder than Maths!).
> This may be either because the
> standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
>
Yes, I noticed that and was stunned: it seems unlikely that it is harder
(speaking as an amateur, the AS ICT papers look derisively easy). So it
could well be that the general standard of teaching is so bad that the
average student performs worse in ICT than in Chemistry or Economics. Or
perhaps students themselves think it a very easy subject and therefore
devote all their revision energies to other subjects. Or the coursework
scandal is still going on. Or....
SW
Samsonknight
"Stuart Williams" <j...@stuartwilliams.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc2557ec...@news.plus.net...
After completing a full A-level in ICT, I will have to say in *theory* it is
not a difficult subject. However what made it difficult was the overall
*harshness* and *stingyness* in giving marks to pupils. In examinations, it
was difficult to get very high grades such as an A - because although the
papers look relatively easy , you would have to be very precise and concise
in what you write in the exam paper - you cannot waffle like in other
subjects and still expect to get marks. Also, although the AS part of the
course looks easy in terms of examination, the examantions in A2 were much
harder as expected - especially the last module ICT 5 .
As for the coursework , I got a B in AS and an A in A2, which I find really
bizarre. As I did my A2 coursework from scratch 2 days before the final
deadline. I guess I would therefore have to agree with SW that the teaching
is probably very awful, because in order to get my A in the A2 coursework, I
totally ignored the teachers guidance booklet and followed another booklet
of which I had bought. In terms of giving marks away , I did also find that
the teachers were very strict, which was just incredibly jarring.
Eatmorepies
>
> I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
> not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
> that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
> incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
> grade in (much harder than Maths!). This may be either because the
> standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
>
>
John
Eatmorepies
> Fair enough, but what about those students that were "actually" told by
> career advicers that ICT was relevent for *computer science* or any other
> computer type of course and also do not want to goto a polyversities. I.E.
> Me . It is a bit unfair working your arse off then finding out in the
start
> of the A2 course that ICT was "mickey mouse". Anyway, I guess at my former
> 6th form if I had the choice between computing and ICT , I would have
chosen
> computing - but I never :(
>
> If having A-level ICT is a massive issue for top universities - I think
that
> they should state it in their prospectivies under entry requirements for
the
> subject (in my case computer science) - like they would do with general
> studies. I have looked at a few good unis , and some promote having it.
>
>
Have a look on the UCAS site to see the entry requirements for computer
science. e.g. Cardiff only specify one subject for computer science, a pass
in A level maths. Leicester want maths or computing (is ICT counted as
computing?) - both want you to have plenty of A level points.
John
Stuart Williams
No, it doesn't mean ICT is harder than Maths. ALIS simply records the
relationship between many thousands of pupils' average GCSE score (A*=8,
A=7, etc) and their subsequent A level results. It's a purely statistical
exercise that tells schools what the average student is expected to
score. If pupils with an average of e.g. 6.5 get grade B in Maths and
grade C in ICT, it doesn't mean ICT is harder than Maths - it only means
that that's what candidates tend to get. There are many possible reasons
why (see previous posts).
sw
Richard Naylor
"Eatmorepies" <stop...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:2rr6lcF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> >
> > I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
> > not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
> > that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
> > incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
> > grade in (much harder than Maths!). This may be either because the
> > standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
> >
Or that the population doing ICT is at the lower end of the ability range of
the whole population doing A levels? Comparing each pupil's ICT points
score with their average points score for all the A levels they sat would be
interesting. If they are fairly close then perhaps the ICT grade boundaries
are ok. Of course there are other factors that could affect such
comparisons!
Richard
Ian
> I suspect you're "post rationalising" this. It might be better to say
> that engineering education builds on the maths and science taught in
> schools, because that's what's taught in schools.
No, maths and science are simply the explanation of the why and the how?
Engineering is mor to do with the what?
> The most significant contributions to maths and science have all
> resulted from the need to solve real problems.
That really makes no difference. In fact it works both ways, lasers were
not much use to anyone when they were first invented, just a novel
phenomenon. I doubt Einstein had the Starship enterprise in mind when he
put together the theory of special relativity. Most telescopes are
engineering in response to wanting to increase scientific knowledge for
the sake of it. Quantum mechanics definitely wasn't to do with designing
tunnel diodes and stuff that came much later.
The educational issue is one of fundamental understanding, skills and
knowledge with maximum transfer which is why most of the CS departments
aren't interested in computer grades at school as long as the candidate
has an A in maths. In fact I should think As in Maths, Physics and
Chemistry would be looked on with rather more favour. Most engineering
courses also require maths and physics. Sure you can do A level
engineering but its not that popular. Given the choice I still think I'd
have done physics personally but I'm sure there are others who would
choose engineering if available
> It wasn't discovered that maths
> could be used to solve problems, rather maths was constructed,
> developed, and improved to achieve engineering outcomes. It might be
> rather easier for students, and teachers, to appreciate differential
> equations, fourier transforms, and the rest if the reasons for the
> development were known, rather than these being seen as just
> applications. Mathematics does not exist for its own sake.
It does for pure mathematicians, but in any case you misunderstand the
argument. I'm not saying that we should teach say science divorced from
all practical contexts, on the contrary, contexts for learning are what
motivate most but not all people. But applying the scientific method to
investigate in range of contexts and having slick and well-practiced
mathematical skills is an advantage in so many fields beyone engineering.
> Of course there is some history of pretending that science and
> mathematics are like literature, music, etc. in existing for their own
> sake.
They are, as is technology. They all have a cultural dimension, its just
that some thngs are more commonly though of in that way and have been for
longer. If an individual even in a small minority enjoys science for the
sake of science then it exists in his mind for its own sake. This is one
of the fundamental problems with education. One set of people ie Teachers
of <Subject> imposing their views and values ion another set of people who
have completely different motivations and views of the world. Really each
individual needs to be motivated by what works for them. For some it will
be maths through to engineering for others engineering through to maths.
These things are called preferredlearning styles.
>> ICT down to "business", which business? Of course you can say most
>> people use a WP so we'll teach that tool but then we don't have A
>> levels in handwriting so why do we need them in WP? And we do have A
>> levels/AVCE in Business Studies anyway.
>
> Which seems to be about studying business (like the science thing
> perhaps), rather than developing business skills.
Scientific skills are developed in schools. Mostly that is the way its
taught, throught scientific investigation using scientific methods. Good
business teaching will do the same thing through things like Young
Enterprise but like mediocre science teaching or engineering teaching,
mediocre business teaching will watch rather than do.
> But then some teachers will argue
> that education isn't about training youngsters for employment.
Education is not exclusively about training youngsters for employment but
it is an improtant element. The debate is not as simplistic as you
suggest, its more about balance. Even when employment is the goal, narrow
training for specific tasks is dangerous because they change so we need
people educated for change to make them employable for more than their
first job.
>> Fundamental understanding of how and why things are as they are is what
>> separates an educated person from an uneducated person. Learning
>> technical
>
> Indeed, but recongising that such techniques can, and should, be applied
> to the things we make, the way we are governed, and the rest is still
> not universally recognised.
I think it is. The major probalem for schools is getting enough people to
teach who are able to change their knowledge and skills rapidly enough.
Citizenship is now part of the mainstream curriculum. All children learn
to design and make things as part of the national curriculum, all children
do scientific and mathematical investigations. Its all there even if its
not always brilliantly executed.
> Some resistance, but a great deal of ignorance too.
Lots of that about. Some people don't even know that its against the law
for schools not to teach designing and making! :-)
--
IanL
ZMS Ltd - Education Management Consultants
WWW.thelearningmachine.co.uk
WWW.theINGOTs.org
Ian
> In article <pan.2004.09.26....@zmsl.takemeout.com>, Ian
> <ian....@zmsl.takemeout.com> wrote:
>> Fundamental understanding of how and why things are as they are is what
>> separates an educated person from an uneducated person. Learning
>> technical procedures is relatively easy, understanding them so that
>> they can be applied and modified for improvement and transferred to
>> similar and even very different circumstances is much more difficult.
>
> And that understanding *is* the Technology curriculum until it is
> undermined by practically everyone involved.
The sad fact is that so few of the DT teachers at the time were capable of
making the transition from sawing wood to a process led curriculum it was
dead in the water before it started. In fact there is nothing really
preventing an enlightened technologist teaching in the way of the original
orders. All the neww ones really do is spell out some specific knowledge
and skills areas.
> It's the subject I was
> prepared to teach but, except for a very brief time, never allowed to
> teach.
See above. Mind there are always alternatives. You could have started your
own school ;-)
>> Unfortunatley human nature often results in the line of least
>> resistance.
>
> That's what education is supposed to put right.
Except that education is managed and delivered by lots of humans who are
susceptible to the same failings as anyone else.
Ian
> "Thomas" <nos...@notever.not> wrote in message
> news:ZVG5d.7770$__5....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>>> My own experience of working in education (well Reading University,
>>> but it's similar) was that such organisations are probably some of the
>>> worst in valuing qualifications, and instead recruit what appear to be
>>> "clever" people, as though cleverness can somehow fix a network. Are
>>> secondary schools any better? i.e. do they stick to their guns and
>>> demand formal IT qualifications, or are the formal qualifications they
>>> deliver something for other employers in other places?
>>
>>
>> Just out of interest, what qualifications would you consider to be
>> appropriate for becoming a school network manager?
>>
>>
> Is it any different from being a network manager anywhere else? If not
> then I expect what is usually required is "experience" (always) and
> those CCNA/CCNE things or similar. But I've never had to produce a job
> spec for such a person so I'm not really the person to ask. My question
> was really about whether schools actually have a spec for such posts.
> They're bound to for teaching posts, so why not other posts?
Yes there are job specs for network managers but they vary. Some NMs are
just managers with technicians under them, some are both managers and
technicians. In general I don't think the industry qulaifications like
MCSE are that great because usually the incumbent has to be able to do a
lot of things not in that syllabus. probably the best qualification is
brains and practical experience.
> If it is different to other places then it might be because the support
> available from elsewhere, LEA?, and bits missing from the job,
> procurement?, project management?, make it less demanding than in other
> sectors.
Not really less demanding - probably more so in that the person is
probably managing many more PCs running more diverse apps in a more
hostile user environment.
> Michael Saunby
Tina Eager
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fair enough, but what about those students that were "actually" told by
> > > career advicers that ICT was relevent for *computer science* or any
> other
> > > computer type of course and also do not want to goto a polyversities.
> I.E.
> > > Me . It is a bit unfair working your arse off then finding out in the
> start
> > > of the A2 course that ICT was "mickey mouse". Anyway, I guess at my
> former
> > > 6th form if I had the choice between computing and ICT , I would have
> chosen
> > > computing - but I never :(
> > >
But that's because you (presumably) had a careers advisor who got it
wrong. People still don't know the difference between ICT and Computing.
Anyway there's nothing "Mickey Mouse" about the A2 ICT project - if done
properly.
> > > If having A-level ICT is a massive issue for top universities - I think
> that
> > > they should state it in their prospectivies under entry requirements for
> the
> > > subject (in my case computer science) - like they would do with general
> > > studies. I have looked at a few good unis , and some promote having it.
> > >
> > >
> > How can they do that? Lots of schools don't offer ICT (even more don't
> > offer Computing).
>
> Well mine did, and from talking to many other students my age that did goto
> a *state school*, they also did offer ICT.
>
> >If you are looking for prospective students it doesn't
> > make sense to eliminate a huge proportion of your prospective applicants
>
> > by making entry requirements they can't achieve.
> >
>
> I agree with that point, very few students actually do meet the entry
> requirements. From my 6th form I would say that only 10% of students did
> meet the entry requirements with As and Bs, the others - well they did pass
> but with lowish grades D and Es.
>
Not quite the point I was making (or trying to), Why make Computing or
ICT A level a pre-requisite for a course when the majority of people who
might apply won't have done it. People did Computing courses before
Computing and ICT A levels and managed OK.
--
Tina Eager
Tina Eager
wrote:
'Tis indeed. It's almost as hard as Computing.
I'd suggest that part of the reason it's so difficult is the width of
teh subject. You have to dal with some fairly techie stuff about
networks and whate bits there are and how they work and how the bits fit
together and then you also have to deal with stuff that is more Business
Studies and about the impact of ICT in organisations. The mindset and
skills to do well in each are quite different.
--
Tina Eager
Tony Sheppard
(in article <pan.2004.09.27....@zmsl.takemeout.com>):
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:57:25 +0100, Michael Saunby wrote:
>
>
>> "Thomas" <nos...@notever.not> wrote in message
>> news:ZVG5d.7770$__5....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>> Michael Saunby wrote:
>>>
>>>> My own experience of working in education (well Reading University,
>>>> but it's similar) was that such organisations are probably some of the
>>>> worst in valuing qualifications, and instead recruit what appear to be
>>>> "clever" people, as though cleverness can somehow fix a network. Are
>>>> secondary schools any better? i.e. do they stick to their guns and
>>>> demand formal IT qualifications, or are the formal qualifications they
>>>> deliver something for other employers in other places?
>>>
>>> Just out of interest, what qualifications would you consider to be
>>> appropriate for becoming a school network manager?
The ability to manage?
>> Is it any different from being a network manager anywhere else? If not
>> then I expect what is usually required is "experience" (always) and
>> those CCNA/CCNE things or similar. But I've never had to produce a job
>> spec for such a person so I'm not really the person to ask. My question
>> was really about whether schools actually have a spec for such posts.
>> They're bound to for teaching posts, so why not other posts?
>
> Yes there are job specs for network managers but they vary. Some NMs are
> just managers with technicians under them, some are both managers and
> technicians. In general I don't think the industry qulaifications like
> MCSE are that great because usually the incumbent has to be able to do a
> lot of things not in that syllabus. probably the best qualification is
> brains and practical experience.
>
Someone who can live up to the IT Support Motto [0] is the best qualification
>> If it is different to other places then it might be because the support
>> available from elsewhere, LEA?, and bits missing from the job,
>> procurement?, project management?, make it less demanding than in other
>> sectors.
>
> Not really less demanding - probably more so in that the person is
> probably managing many more PCs running more diverse apps in a more
> hostile user environment.
Each school is different. Each school has different needs and different ways
of getting things running. Some schools do everything in-house (cabling,
building machines, programming, etc) some out-source it to contractors or
county support teams, some outsource pretty much everything to external
support companies.
The flexibility is one of the things that is beneficial to the education
environment. It allows schools to play on their strengths, to accept help
where they need it.
But the only thing that is quite often missing is the person who understands
how to gauge what the school's strengths and weaknesses are. This can
sometimes be filled by advice for outside groups, but not always.
Having a network manager who is willing to ask for advice and help is
important ... after all we are not supermen / women / people of indeterminate
gender ... and sometimes the hostile environment in schools is of our own
making because we won't look elsewhere for advice when something clearly
isn't right or things are missing from what the school needs.
I'm not saying qualifications are not important ... I would rather see people
working towards a target to demonstrate their knowledge ... but I also like
to see people more interested in getting the job done than screaming about
the importance of a piece of paper.
With qualifications like A Level ICT (almost coming back on topic now) it is
the fact that the student is learning that is the key ... that they are
taking on knowledge that they can adapt to use elsewhere ...
But that's just my view ...
Tony Sheppard
[0] IT Support Motto - Miracles we can do today ... the impossible? Please
give us 24 hours notice .... and a crate of coke ... and chocolate ... and a
few days off afterwards ... and maybe some PS2 games to relax with ... have I
mentioned days off? ... [1]
[1] It goes on ... into finer print ... and one day I will have it made into
a T-Shirt
Matthew Huntbach
> "Samsonknight" <samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > If having A-level ICT is a massive issue for top universities - I think
> > that they should state it in their prospectivies under entry requirements
> > for the subject (in my case computer science) - like they would do with
> > general studies. I have looked at a few good unis , and some promote
> > having it.
> How can they do that? Lots of schools don't offer ICT (even more don't
> offer Computing). If you are looking for prospective students it doesn't
> make sense to eliminate a huge proportion of your prospective applicants
> by making entry requirements they can't achieve.
I think "samsonknight" is actually suggesting that university Computer
Science departments actually spell out that they *don't* regard
A-level ICT as particularly useful. I have actually stated this in the
prospectus entry for Computer Science where I'm admissions tutor. In
saying this, it doesn't mean I regard A-level ICT as useless all
round, it just means I don't regard it as particularly useful for my
purposes, and also that it needs to be spelt out because in many
schools it is believed by teachers as well as pupils that A-level ICT
is the main thing university admissions tutors in Computer Science are
looking for.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> > Some of you may remember some adverse comments from a certain
> > admissions tutor about the value of A level ICT.
> I think this rather mis-represents his point of view. I've never thought
> that he meant that A Level ICT is not a good subject but rather that it's
> not a good introduction for a computer science degree - two very different
> statements.
Thank you, that is EXACTLY the point I have made many times.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> "Samsonknight" <samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
> not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
> that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
> incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
> grade in (much harder than Maths!). This may be either because the
> standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
An alternative explanation is that A-level ICT is seen as an "easy
option" subject and is thus taken predominantly by the less
intelligent sixth formers. Other A-level subjects are seen as "hard"
and are thus taken only by the more intelligent and thus achieve a
high percentage of grade As. Latin, for example has a huge proportion
of those who take it getting grade A. Does that mean Latin is a really
easy subject? No, it means that it has a reputation for being really
hard thus only those who are on track for grade A would dare take it.
I have often been told by teachers that A-level ICT is laid on for
those pupils who want to do "something with computers" but who would
struggle to pass A-level Maths or A-level Computing. Thus if someone
takes it, the chances are they are doing so because they would
struggle with Maths.
Now, the sort of skills which A-level Maths develops and tests are
essential for degree level Computer Science. There does seem to be a
correlation between them and skills in coding. However, I would have
thought the skills in abstraction and general use of logic and rules
are of value in many other areas of what industry calls "IT". If
someone is lacking in these skills, are they going to be much good in
analysing business needs and developing complex systems?
So I do believe that a lot of the reason A-level ICT seems such a
disappointment is not down to the A-level itself but down to those who
choose or are encouraged to take it. It may be all about business
analysis and user requirements and the like - fine, these are good
things for a Computer Science degree - but I rather suspect a lot of
people who take A-level ICT do so because they like playing around
with word processors and drawing packages and think A-level ICT is
just about that sort of thing. After all, that's what is meant by "IT"
earlier in schools, isn't it?
Matthew Huntbach
Tina Eager
Huntbach) wrote:
> m.tho...@ntlworld.com (Mark Thomas) wrote:
> > "Samsonknight" <samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> An alternative explanation is that A-level ICT is seen as an "easy
> option" subject and is thus taken predominantly by the less
> intelligent sixth formers.
Certainly the case in our school. It is predominantly the less able who
take it or people who are looking for a fourth choice A level and who
intend to drop it after AS. We use the ALIS stuff for grade predictions
and it seems to work OK. Even the more able students do less well at ICT
than other subjects.
>
> Now, the sort of skills which A-level Maths develops and tests are
> essential for degree level Computer Science. There does seem to be a
> correlation between them and skills in coding. However, I would have
> thought the skills in abstraction and general use of logic and rules
> are of value in many other areas of what industry calls "IT". If
> someone is lacking in these skills, are they going to be much good in
> analysing business needs and developing complex systems?
>
Well sorry, but I don't actually agree with you about the maths. Not
everybodywhodoes degree level Computer Science needs A level maths.
Purely personal experience of course but I did my CS on the basis of
CSE maths. I have no further experience of formal maths than that.
Still doing OK in CS though. A lot of the logic stuff I got through
Philosophy and the maths I picked up as I went along. It can be done. I
just refuse to believe I'm that unusual - I can't be the only one
surely?
> So I do believe that a lot of the reason A-level ICT seems such a
> disappointment is not down to the A-level itself but down to those who
> choose or are encouraged to take it. It may be all about business
> analysis and user requirements and the like - fine, these are good
> things for a Computer Science degree - but I rather suspect a lot of
> people who take A-level ICT do so because they like playing around
> with word processors and drawing packages and think A-level ICT is
> just about that sort of thing. After all, that's what is meant by "IT"
> earlier in schools, isn't it?
Refer you to the National Curriculum and National Strategy stuff but
basically you're right. Using packages but without really understanding
why/how they work.
--
Tina Eager
Samsonknight
"Tina Eager" <nos...@tavi.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W6UuQz2oisk0-p...@tikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:17:44 UTC, mhun...@hotmail.com (Matthew
> Huntbach) wrote:
>
> > m.tho...@ntlworld.com (Mark Thomas) wrote:
> > > "Samsonknight" <samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > An alternative explanation is that A-level ICT is seen as an "easy
> > option" subject and is thus taken predominantly by the less
> > intelligent sixth formers.
>
> Certainly the case in our school. It is predominantly the less able who
> take it or people who are looking for a fourth choice A level and who
> intend to drop it after AS. We use the ALIS stuff for grade predictions
> and it seems to work OK. Even the more able students do less well at ICT
> than other subjects.
>
Great! I just got an A-level grade out of it and now it feels like such a
waste. I really hope my UCAS applications for computer science this year
will not be majorly affected as a result of me doing it. Most students that
I know that did it , did not do it because they thought it was "easy", as a
matter of fact most of the ones that wanted "easy alevels" chose Media , art
and general studies. Also, I will have to disagree with the fact that ICT is
a subject taken by "less able 6th formers", we had all sorts of people in
our class at A2 - ranging from those studying the hard sciences to those who
were not. TBH most people that were doing ICT , initially chose it because
they thought it may help them if they studied a business related degree or
like myself go onto do computer science.
> >
> > Now, the sort of skills which A-level Maths develops and tests are
> > essential for degree level Computer Science. There does seem to be a
> > correlation between them and skills in coding. However, I would have
> > thought the skills in abstraction and general use of logic and rules
> > are of value in many other areas of what industry calls "IT". If
> > someone is lacking in these skills, are they going to be much good in
> > analysing business needs and developing complex systems?
> >
>
> Well sorry, but I don't actually agree with you about the maths. Not
> everybodywhodoes degree level Computer Science needs A level maths.
> Purely personal experience of course but I did my CS on the basis of
> CSE maths. I have no further experience of formal maths than that.
> Still doing OK in CS though. A lot of the logic stuff I got through
> Philosophy and the maths I picked up as I went along. It can be done. I
> just refuse to believe I'm that unusual - I can't be the only one
> surely?
>
After doing Alevel maths now I feel that it is very vital to do it, lets say
for example you go into games programming after your degree, wouldn't the
concepts surrounding trigonometry,differentiation and integration be handy?
Also I find that whilst doing alevel maths , your mind tends to be forced
into thinking much more logically - isn't that what programming about?
> > So I do believe that a lot of the reason A-level ICT seems such a
> > disappointment is not down to the A-level itself but down to those who
> > choose or are encouraged to take it. It may be all about business
> > analysis and user requirements and the like - fine, these are good
> > things for a Computer Science degree - but I rather suspect a lot of
> > people who take A-level ICT do so because they like playing around
> > with word processors and drawing packages and think A-level ICT is
> > just about that sort of thing. After all, that's what is meant by "IT"
> > earlier in schools, isn't it?
>
> Refer you to the National Curriculum and National Strategy stuff but
> basically you're right. Using packages but without really understanding
> why/how they work.
>
>
We understood why to use databases , or creating systems in spreadsheets.
But what did annoy students like myself that did ICT through *good
intentions* is that much of the course content was just so irrelevent, and
by the time most of us realised this - it was far too late to drop it. The
AS course was irrelevent because from doing it, it was just simply going
over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at GCSE
and got an A in it. Naturally , we all thought it would have got better in
A2, like most other subjects do, but no it didn't, ICT 4 was just like ICT 2
(just a bit more added on to it)- and instead of learning new things , it
felt so repetitive. As for ICT 5 , well I guess that was a good unit, the
rest were repetitive , and what makes it worse is that throughout the whole
course is the *harshness* in giving marks. In addition to that , the
coursework also felt very repetitive, the same process was used as in GCSE:
Analysis > Design > implementation > user guide > evaluation.
This brings me to the following conclusion - "Is ICT a easy subject?" = "No"
, Why? because simply due to the difficulty in obtaining marks in it, which
means that it requires you to work relatively hard to get marks. Hence the
less able students will end up with Ds or Es at the end.
I regret taking it , and in future I think that ICT should just be an
applied subject to those doing business studies, like statistics or
mechanics is to maths. That way, the irrelevent bits of the course would be
snipped out and students like myself will not be discriminated against for
doing a 'mickey mouse' subject. Also it will save us a lot of time by
allowing us to presue our other interests at A-level - in my case
politics/history or Art.
Adam Atkinson
>But what did annoy students like myself that did ICT through *good
>intentions* is that much of the course content was just so irrelevent, and
>by the time most of us realised this - it was far too late to drop it. The
>AS course was irrelevent because from doing it, it was just simply going
>over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
>software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at GCSE
>and got an A in it.
Why is "different types of networks" irrelevant? (This is not a
rhetorical question). Would e.g. knowing the difference between a hub
and a switch be something one would learn on A-level ICT? A router and
a switch?
I ought to go into WHSmiths and look at an A-level ICT book, since I
have very little idea of what's in it.
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
Libri e altro per matematici piu' o meno ricreativi:
http://www.mistral.co.uk/ghira/recmathslibri.html
black dog
<a0dde83b.04092...@posting.google.com> from Matthew Huntbach
contained the following:
>in many
>schools it is believed by teachers as well as pupils that A-level ICT
>is the main thing university admissions tutors in Computer Science are
>looking for.
Probably because to them ICT is 'stuff about computers' and they are
using ICT and computing interchangeably.
Hard to see an ICT/Computing teacher getting that wrong though.
--
black-dog
"Always spellcheck your wok to avoid mistakes"
Euan Beattie
> >over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
> >software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at GCSE
> >and got an A in it.
But a good teacher surely will not just go over all the GCSE stuff....
I think that might be a mistake many staff make and hence the dire
result of 1/4 kids nationally not passing ICT.
> Why is "different types of networks" irrelevant? (This is not a
> rhetorical question). Would e.g. knowing the difference between a hub
> and a switch be something one would learn on A-level ICT? A router and
> a switch?
Well we teach our kids it! The problem IMHO with AQA ICT is the way
in which the spec is written. Its so vague that staff can get away
with recyling GCSE... some of the textbooks are guilty of this too.
If AQA could tackle the spec then (a) staff would know what to teach
and (b) they could set some decent questions. Raise the standard...
I'd love to see a question "What is the difference between a hub and a
switch? Use a diagram to illustrate your answer." but there's no
chance of this with the current wordy and non specific specification
:-)
Samsonknight
"Adam Atkinson" <gh...@mistral.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1019.767T2953...@mistral.co.uk...
> On 28-Sep-04 02:18:39, Samsonknight said:
>
> >But what did annoy students like myself that did ICT through *good
> >intentions* is that much of the course content was just so irrelevent,
and
> >by the time most of us realised this - it was far too late to drop it.
The
> >AS course was irrelevent because from doing it, it was just simply going
> >over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
> >software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at
GCSE
> >and got an A in it.
>
> Why is "different types of networks" irrelevant? (This is not a
> rhetorical question). Would e.g. knowing the difference between a hub
> and a switch be something one would learn on A-level ICT? A router and
> a switch?
>
> I ought to go into WHSmiths and look at an A-level ICT book, since I
> have very little idea of what's in it.
>
Ok I guess its not irrelevent but in the ICT course it is very vague in
explanation , its ought to be much more practical if we are to learn
properly about how different networks are used and assembled in different
companies. Otherwise what is the point? And besides , you learn about the
theoritical side of networks the same way in GCSE. Well I did anyway.
Samsonknight
"Euan Beattie" <eu...@trurocollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c61eb812.04092...@posting.google.com...
> , it was just simply going
> > >over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
> > >software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at
GCSE
> > >and got an A in it.
>
> But a good teacher surely will not just go over all the GCSE stuff....
> I think that might be a mistake many staff make and hence the dire
> result of 1/4 kids nationally not passing ICT.
>
>
Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
unheard off, hence the reason why I had not followed the teachers A2 guide
for coursework in A2 in order to get my A in the c/w. Also it would help if
ICT was not taught so monotonously, students would fall asleep in that
lesson and hence find it so hard because half the time we were told to goto
chapter 56 (or another chapter) read and make notes....
> > Why is "different types of networks" irrelevant? (This is not a
> > rhetorical question). Would e.g. knowing the difference between a hub
> > and a switch be something one would learn on A-level ICT? A router and
> > a switch?
>
>
> Well we teach our kids it! The problem IMHO with AQA ICT is the way
> in which the spec is written. Its so vague that staff can get away
> with recyling GCSE... some of the textbooks are guilty of this too.
> If AQA could tackle the spec then (a) staff would know what to teach
> and (b) they could set some decent questions. Raise the standard...
> I'd love to see a question "What is the difference between a hub and a
> switch? Use a diagram to illustrate your answer." but there's no
> chance of this with the current wordy and non specific specification
> :-)
Despite having an interest in computers and passing both A-level and GCSE
ICT, I cannot answer that question...says it all really.
John Cartmell
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Also it would help if ICT was not taught so monotonously, students would
> fall asleep in that lesson and hence find it so hard because half the
> time we were told to goto chapter 56 (or another chapter) read and make
> notes....
Any subject can be taught badly - or well. Any subject can be taught
brilliantly. You should expect 'well' and rejoice when you're privileged to
have a brilliant teacher.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Matthew Huntbach
> "Euan Beattie" <eu...@trurocollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> But a good teacher surely will not just go over all the GCSE stuff....
>> I think that might be a mistake many staff make and hence the dire
>> result of 1/4 kids nationally not passing ICT.
> Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
> unheard off, hence the reason why I had not followed the teachers A2 guide
> for coursework in A2 in order to get my A in the c/w. Also it would help if
> ICT was not taught so monotonously, students would fall asleep in that
> lesson and hence find it so hard because half the time we were told to goto
> chapter 56 (or another chapter) read and make notes....
Oh, don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of good teachers in state schools.
There are plenty of bad teachers in private schools. Bad teachers can more
easily get away with being bad in private schools because they will have
good pupils from well-motivated and connected backgrounds. State schools
vary enormously, but in many cases it's the sort of pupils they have that
makes the big difference. A school in some prosperous leafy suburb or
rural area will be able to do a whole lot better than a school in a run
down inner city area not because of the teachers but because of the
background of the pupils.
I am sure it is not the case that ICT is uniformly or necessarily taught
monotonously. Just because it may have been where you were does not mean
it is everywhere.
>> Well we teach our kids it! The problem IMHO with AQA ICT is the way
>> in which the spec is written. Its so vague that staff can get away
>> with recyling GCSE... some of the textbooks are guilty of this too.
>> If AQA could tackle the spec then (a) staff would know what to teach
>> and (b) they could set some decent questions. Raise the standard...
>> I'd love to see a question "What is the difference between a hub and a
>> switch? Use a diagram to illustrate your answer." but there's no
>> chance of this with the current wordy and non specific specification
> Despite having an interest in computers and passing both A-level and GCSE
> ICT, I cannot answer that question...says it all really.
Er yes, because from what I gather ICT isn't supposed to be about
detailed technical aspects. I looked at the AQA ICT spec myself having
got into this debate, and it was all about business information flow and
the like. It was not about the hardware of computers. So why should anyone
who has taken it be expected to know such things?
I do agree with Euan, however, the spec was *very* vague. I am sure that
good and useful things could be done on the basis of that spec. I could
also see, however, that it could very easily degenerate into a lot of
waffle with assessment based on rote memorsing definitions.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Samsonknight wrote:
> Great! I just got an A-level grade out of it and now it feels like such a
> waste. I really hope my UCAS applications for computer science this year
> will not be majorly affected as a result of me doing it.
Computer Science admissions tutors are well aware of the fact that many
students who want to do a Computer Science degree take it because they
are wrongly advised.
> Most students that
> I know that did it , did not do it because they thought it was "easy", as a
> matter of fact most of the ones that wanted "easy alevels" chose Media , art
> and general studies. Also, I will have to disagree with the fact that ICT is
> a subject taken by "less able 6th formers", we had all sorts of people in
> our class at A2 - ranging from those studying the hard sciences to those who
> were not. TBH most people that were doing ICT , initially chose it because
> they thought it may help them if they studied a business related degree or
> like myself go onto do computer science.
A-level ICT may well be useful for those planning to take a business
related degree. Please don't think that because I criticise its suitability
as a preparation and assessment for a Computer Science degree that I think
it is without value altogether.
> We understood why to use databases , or creating systems in spreadsheets.
> But what did annoy students like myself that did ICT through *good
> intentions* is that much of the course content was just so irrelevent, and
> by the time most of us realised this - it was far too late to drop it. The
> AS course was irrelevent because from doing it, it was just simply going
> over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
> software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at GCSE
> and got an A in it.
These are relevant things for Computer Science. The real issue is that a
Computer Science degree is mainly about analysis and problem solving.
Therfore what is required for assessment for suitability for it is
evidence that someone is good at analysis and problem solving. If someone
is able to memorise and regurgitate a whole load of computer-related
definitions (and, unfortunately, it many cases it seems that's what is
involved in getting an A-level in ICT) it may be of marginal help when
they meet the same definitions in a Computer Science degree, but it tells
us nothing about the essential skills in analysis. My experience is that
one of the biggest reasons for failure in a Computer Science degree is
an inability to distinguish between memorisation and learning. That is
why I find qualifications which can be passed through memorisation are
such bad predictors at success on the degree.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Tina Eager wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:17:44 UTC, mhun...@hotmail.com (Matthew
> Huntbach) wrote:
>> Now, the sort of skills which A-level Maths develops and tests are
>> essential for degree level Computer Science. There does seem to be a
>> correlation between them and skills in coding. However, I would have
>> thought the skills in abstraction and general use of logic and rules
>> are of value in many other areas of what industry calls "IT". If
>> someone is lacking in these skills, are they going to be much good in
>> analysing business needs and developing complex systems?
> Well sorry, but I don't actually agree with you about the maths. Not
> everybodywhodoes degree level Computer Science needs A level maths.
> Purely personal experience of course but I did my CS on the basis of
> CSE maths. I have no further experience of formal maths than that.
> Still doing OK in CS though. A lot of the logic stuff I got through
> Philosophy and the maths I picked up as I went along. It can be done. I
> just refuse to believe I'm that unusual - I can't be the only one
> surely?
Look a little more closely at what I've written. I didn't say the actual
content of A-level Maths was required for a Computer Science degree. I
said A-level Maths developed and tested the sort of skills a CS degree
requires. Most of the content of A-level Maths isn't found, at least in
the core modules in a CS degree. The sort of maths that is found in a CS
degree (and there are many different sorts of CS degrees, so what I mean
here is the traditional sort of CS degree taught at a research-oriented
university) is different from the sort of maths found in A-level.
So what you say is quite right - you don't actually *need* A-level Maths to
do a CS degree. However, it tends to be a good test of the right sort of
abilities. In fact I think doing it actually helps develop those abilities.
That is why A-level Maths is valued by CS admissions tutors. Someone who
hasn't taken A-level Maths may have those abilities, but won't have been
tested in them, and maybe won't have had them developed in the way that
doing A-level Maths would have done.
There is a lot of argument about this in CS education circles, but many
CS people involved in university admission to report that the strongest
correlation they can find between entrance qualifications and degree
performance is with A-level Maths. In my case I find that if a student
has a good or reasonable A-level Maths, they will almost always be able
to cope with the degree. If they hate Maths or find it hard, they almost
always will hate the degree and find it hard. If they just didn't do
A-level Maths because no-one advised them it might be a good idea, but
have no particular dislike of Maths, they may do well on the degree, they
may not - if I had a surplus of applicants, I might be inclined not to
take them on the grounds that they're a bit of a risk.
Matthew Huntbach
John Cartmell
Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> If someone is able to memorise and regurgitate a whole load of
> computer-related definitions (and, unfortunately, it many cases it seems
> that's what is involved in getting an A-level in ICT) it may be of
> marginal help when they meet the same definitions in a Computer Science
> degree, but it tells us nothing about the essential skills in analysis.
The trouble is that some have tried to teach IT as the
problem-solving/analysis subject that it really is. It's only very recently
that curriculum and examination have clearly favoured the more sterile side
of the subject.
Mark Thomas
Chances of a good GCSE student gaining an A grade at A level:
Maths 46%, ICT 25%
As I said that doesn't mean that Maths is harder per se but that only
25% of top students rather than 46% gain grade As. It could be the
teachers, it could be the moderators, ....
Mark Thomas
> option" subject and is thus taken predominantly by the less
> intelligent sixth formers. Other A-level subjects are seen as "hard"
Sorry, you miss the point. It is not about 'less able'
A student with a GCSE point score of 6.4 is a good student. In Maths
46% of such students gain A grades at A level. In ICT only 25% of such
top students gain A grades. Its either the teaching which is poor or
that the standard is set too high. The message seems to have got
across and students are now opting for 'easier' A levels, such as
Maths.
Matthew Huntbach
I only put it forward as a possible explanation. We have certainly heard a
great deal of anecdotal evidence that students are dropping Maths at
A-level because they *believe* it to be a hard subject, and also that
ICT is one of the subjects being picked up because students *believe* it
to be easy. Of course, what students believe and what is the truth may not
be the same thing.
If, as you seem to have done, evidence can be provided that students with
the same GCSE scores get higher grades in A-level Maths than A-level ICT,
then that is more convincing evidence that A-level ICT is harder than Maths
than a mere statement that more people get grade A in Maths than ICT.
Matthew Huntbach
Mark Thomas
> These are relevant things for Computer Science. The real issue is that a
> Computer Science degree is mainly about analysis and problem solving.
> Therfore what is required for assessment for suitability for it is
> evidence that someone is good at analysis and problem solving. If someone
> is able to memorise and regurgitate a whole load of computer-related
> definitions (and, unfortunately, it many cases it seems that's what is
> involved in getting an A-level in ICT) it may be of marginal help when
There is a degree of regurgitation in the theory modules but in module
6 the project is analysis based. A lot depends on moderation but you
shouldn't be getting a good A level in ICT if you can't do the
analysis/problem solving.
Adam Atkinson
> Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
> unheard off,
I went to a state school and we had some excellent teachers. (Well,
I don't know what public school teachers are like of course. For
all I know, they're all transcendent beings...)
> > > Why is "different types of networks" irrelevant? (This is not a
> > > rhetorical question). Would e.g. knowing the difference between a hub
> > > and a switch be something one would learn on A-level ICT? A router and
> > > a switch?
> Despite having an interest in computers and passing both A-level and GCSE
> ICT, I cannot answer that question...says it all really.
What sort of thing do you do about networks in GCSE / A-level ICT, then?
The difference between a switch and a hub is not something I'd expect
random people in the street to know, but I'd have guessed it would
be in A-level or even GCSE. I carefully chose it to be something that
I thought might be more likely to be in ICT than in Computer Science,
though this was based on my probably wildly inaccurate idea of what
might be in ICT. I do networking for a living, and the difference
between a switch and a hub is one of the first things people learn
when they arrive in my department. I could imagine that e.g. Matthew
Huntbach doesn't know or care about the distinction, since there
may be no reason for him to know or care about this any more than
he needs to care about which sub-menu in Application Blah the wobbliser
command appears in.
As regards the same topics turning up again at A-level: that's not
necessarily so surprising. I'm sure the same happens in e.g. Biology,
Chemistry, History and Economics, but no doubt at A-level you do them
"properly".
I could imagine setting exactly the same assignment at both GCSE and
A-level, expecting more complete/sophisticated answers from A-level students.
--
Adam Atkinson
gh...@mistral.co.uk
Samsonknight
"Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.04...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
> > "Euan Beattie" <eu...@trurocollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> >> But a good teacher surely will not just go over all the GCSE stuff....
> >> I think that might be a mistake many staff make and hence the dire
> >> result of 1/4 kids nationally not passing ICT.
>
> > Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
> > unheard off, hence the reason why I had not followed the teachers A2
guide
> > for coursework in A2 in order to get my A in the c/w. Also it would help
if
> > ICT was not taught so monotonously, students would fall asleep in that
> > lesson and hence find it so hard because half the time we were told to
goto
> > chapter 56 (or another chapter) read and make notes....
>
> Oh, don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of good teachers in state
schools.
> There are plenty of bad teachers in private schools. Bad teachers can more
> easily get away with being bad in private schools because they will have
> good pupils from well-motivated and connected backgrounds. State schools
> vary enormously, but in many cases it's the sort of pupils they have that
> makes the big difference. A school in some prosperous leafy suburb or
> rural area will be able to do a whole lot better than a school in a run
> down inner city area not because of the teachers but because of the
> background of the pupils.
>
Ok point taken, I guess I am being overly pessimistic about the quality of
teaching in my school, there were some teachers that were good.
However the teaching in the ICT department was simply rubbish. It was so bad
that my school have now shut down the department in the 6th form I was based
in and moved it to one of the other schools connected to the sixth form. I
envy those that have good teachers in the subject :)
> I am sure it is not the case that ICT is uniformly or necessarily taught
> monotonously. Just because it may have been where you were does not mean
> it is everywhere.
>
> >> Well we teach our kids it! The problem IMHO with AQA ICT is the way
> >> in which the spec is written. Its so vague that staff can get away
> >> with recyling GCSE... some of the textbooks are guilty of this too.
> >> If AQA could tackle the spec then (a) staff would know what to teach
> >> and (b) they could set some decent questions. Raise the standard...
> >> I'd love to see a question "What is the difference between a hub and a
> >> switch? Use a diagram to illustrate your answer." but there's no
> >> chance of this with the current wordy and non specific specification
>
> > Despite having an interest in computers and passing both A-level and
GCSE
> > ICT, I cannot answer that question...says it all really.
>
> Er yes, because from what I gather ICT isn't supposed to be about
> detailed technical aspects. I looked at the AQA ICT spec myself having
> got into this debate, and it was all about business information flow and
> the like. It was not about the hardware of computers. So why should anyone
> who has taken it be expected to know such things?
>
Which is why it should be an applied unit to business studies , so that
students like myself will not make the same mistake.
Mark Thomas
> the same GCSE scores get higher grades in A-level Maths than A-level ICT,
> then that is more convincing evidence that A-level ICT is harder than Maths
> than a mere statement that more people get grade A in Maths than ICT.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
The issue is clouded by the other distinct possibility - that many A
level ICT teachers don't know what they are doing and fail to deliver
courses well enough to do their pupils justice. This is made all the
more likely by the difficulty that teachers have in interpreting the
syllabus for the problem solving U6 project.
Tina Eager
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Certainly the case in our school. It is predominantly the less able
who
> > take it or people who are looking for a fourth choice A level and who
> > intend to drop it after AS. We use the ALIS stuff for grade predictions
> > and it seems to work OK. Even the more able students do less well at ICT
> > than other subjects.
> >
>
> Great! I just got an A-level grade out of it and now it feels like such a
> waste.
How so? You just got an A in a subject which is recognised as difficult.
How is that a waste?
> I really hope my UCAS applications for computer science this year
> will not be majorly affected as a result of me doing it. Most students that
> I know that did it , did not do it because they thought it was "easy", as a
> matter of fact most of the ones that wanted "easy alevels" chose Media , art
> and general studies. Also, I will have to disagree with the fact that ICT is
> a subject taken by "less able 6th formers", we had all sorts of people in
> our class at A2 - ranging from those studying the hard sciences to those who
> were not. TBH most people that were doing ICT , initially chose it because
> they thought it may help them if they studied a business related degree or
> like myself go onto do computer science.
>
In our school it is the less able or the desparate who take it. The kids
who think it's just like GCSE and so they won't have to work hard or
even at all. Couldn't be more wrong of course, but that's one of the
preconceptions people have of ICT.
> > >
> > > Now, the sort of skills which A-level Maths develops and tests are
> > > essential for degree level Computer Science. There does seem to be a
> > > correlation between them and skills in coding.
Algebra maybe but in my experience that's not a given. But if you do D1
and D2 in Maths they are covered in A level Computing, to almost as
great a depth but as only a minor part of the syllabus.
> However, I would have
> > > thought the skills in abstraction and general use of logic and rules
> > > are of value in many other areas of what industry calls "IT". If
> > > someone is lacking in these skills, are they going to be much good in
> > > analysing business needs and developing complex systems?
> > >
>
Possibly they are but if you can't express them except in some arcane
notation that nobody else "gets" what's the point? It's not just Maths
that gives those skills.
> > Well sorry, but I don't actually agree with you about the maths. Not
> > everybodywhodoes degree level Computer Science needs A level maths.
> > Purely personal experience of course but I did my CS on the basis of
> > CSE maths. I have no further experience of formal maths than that.
> > Still doing OK in CS though. A lot of the logic stuff I got through
> > Philosophy and the maths I picked up as I went along. It can be done. I
> > just refuse to believe I'm that unusual - I can't be the only one
> > surely?
> >
>
> After doing Alevel maths now I feel that it is very vital to do it, lets say
> for example you go into games programming after your degree, wouldn't the
> concepts surrounding trigonometry,differentiation and integration be handy?
> Also I find that whilst doing alevel maths , your mind tends to be forced
> into thinking much more logically - isn't that what programming about?
If that was all it was about then maybe maths would be useful. But what
programming is really about is meeting the needs of the user - reliably,
efficiently, quickly and in a way that is easy to maintain and update.
Not all users are games players.
As I understand it the Maths required for doing stuff like advanced
graphics required for games programming isn't in the A level syllabus
anyway and is taught at university as part of an advanced graphic
programming unit. Given the modularity of maths courses I'd expect that
to become the case for different sorts of maths as well. There's no
guarantee that Student X with an A grade in maths has covered anything
like the same syllabus as student Q who also has an A grade but on the
basis of taking different modules.
Some of the best programmers (as opposed to hackers) are linguists and
philosophers. They get the logic and they understand the structure of
languages, even the artificial ones of computing. Of the students I had
doing A2 Computing last year (as a typical example). The top 3 (A, A and
B grades) didn't actually do Maths A level. The guys who did do maths
were in there with Cs. FWIW one of the A grade guys actually did produce
a mod for a game as his project - without the benefit of maths, but he
did do Philosophy. He's doing Computer Science at a "top 10" university
this year.
>
>
> We understood why to use databases , or creating systems in spreadsheets.
> But what did annoy students like myself that did ICT through *good
> intentions* is that much of the course content was just so irrelevent, and
> by the time most of us realised this - it was far too late to drop it.
Irrelevant to/for what? Trust you were one of the students who "got"
normalisation to 3NF without any problems?
> The
> AS course was irrelevent because from doing it, it was just simply going
> over the same stuff in GCSE ICT - legal system, different types of
> software,networks etc - which I found totally irrelevent as I did it at GCSE
> and got an A in it. Naturally , we all thought it would have got better in
> A2, like most other subjects do, but no it didn't, ICT 4 was just like ICT 2
> (just a bit more added on to it)- and instead of learning new things , it
> felt so repetitive. As for ICT 5 , well I guess that was a good unit, the
> rest were repetitive , and what makes it worse is that throughout the whole
> course is the *harshness* in giving marks. In addition to that , the
> coursework also felt very repetitive, the same process was used as in GCSE:
> Analysis > Design > implementation > user guide > evaluation.
>
Harshness as in? You mean you actually had to work at getting marks?
This is where many of our less able and less well motivated students
come unstuck. The unmotivated "I have to do another A level so I'll do
ICT because it's easy" student doesn't make the effort and the less able
student has difficulty grasping some of the concepts and content.
> This brings me to the following conclusion - "Is ICT a easy subject?" = "No"
> , Why? because simply due to the difficulty in obtaining marks in it, which
> means that it requires you to work relatively hard to get marks. Hence the
> less able students will end up with Ds or Es at the end.
>
The really less able students will be "encouraged" to drop out at AS and
not cash in their U grade. The less able but well motivated students
will make it through. The key is motivation and ability I think.
> I regret taking it , and in future I think that ICT should just be an
> applied subject to those doing business studies, like statistics or
> mechanics is to maths. That way, the irrelevent bits of the course would be
> snipped out and students like myself will not be discriminated against for
> doing a 'mickey mouse' subject. Also it will save us a lot of time by
> allowing us to presue our other interests at A-level - in my case
> politics/history or Art.
>
>
But you haven't said what it is you think is irrelevant and why. A
course as broadly based as ICT can't please all the people all the time
and probably won't please any of the people all the time but that
doesn't make it irrelevant in and of itself.
--
Tina Eager
Stuart Williams
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk says...
> > Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
> > unheard off, hence the reason why I had not followed the teachers A2 guide
> > for coursework in A2 in order to get my A in the c/w. Also it would help if
> > ICT was not taught so monotonously, students would fall asleep in that
> > lesson and hence find it so hard because half the time we were told to goto
> > chapter 56 (or another chapter) read and make notes....
>
> Oh, don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of good teachers in state schools.
> There are plenty of bad teachers in private schools. Bad teachers can more
> easily get away with being bad in private schools because they will have
> good pupils from well-motivated and connected backgrounds.
This is naive, Matthew: when parents are paying many thousands of pounds
a year, they won't tolerate bad teaching whatever the motivation of their
children (or their "well-connectedness") might be. In my experience, the
more motivated the pupils, the more stick they give poor teachers, and
their parents quite rightly back them up.
SW
Samsonknight
> "Samsonknight" <samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> > Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
> > unheard off,
>
> I went to a state school and we had some excellent teachers. (Well,
> I don't know what public school teachers are like of course. For
> all I know, they're all transcendent beings...)
>
Yeah , you do get some good teachers , however after having proper a-level
maths tutoring by an individual that teaches at a v good university
institute, I can see the inequality in the quality of teaching between the
teachers in my old school and him. Maybe, I am just being overly harsh by
generilising this for every state school , because after all each teacher is
different. But I suspect that from seeing the higher pass rates from public
schools - that their quality of teaching is 20 times better.
A lot of people may disagree with me by saying "its upto the pupil", but I
totally disagree, teaching is so much more important as it provides
guidance. One of the reasons why I and many others failed AS maths 2 years
back is because we were taught to rely on using formulas - which was not
hard when going through the EDEXCEL textbook and attempting the exercises -
but when it came to the exams we all got baffled as you have to often find
the question within the question and not just use a formula. We lacked
creativity in maths and flair , because we thought the formula would provide
the magical answer. As a result of this way of teaching being embedded in
me, I am now trying to learn maths as if it was a "language" as instructed
by my tutor by drawing graphs or by doing trial and error - its hard to
adjust to this method as I had been taught throughout GCSE and other
mathematics at academical level to rely on formulas.
Well I don't know about the ones you have mentioned, however along with ICT
I also did RE and Psychology at A2 , both were really interesting subjects
at A2 and didn't recycle the AS stuff. At AS RE was learning about the core
beliefs in Islam and Judaism, but in A2 it became much more
historical/political and philosphical. As for Psychology, we learnt
different topics at both AS and A2. It never ever felt like the course was
running out of new things to learn, always something new learn.
Tina Eager
That's down to the exam board. In ICT and Computing the way the
syllabuses are written usually requires a broad coverage or the topic at
AS (to give overview of everything for those people who will drop it)
and then a revisit in more detail for the A2 people.
Now of course you could overcome the duplication issue if everybody was
prepared to take the whole A2 and AS all in one go at the end of the
course. You'd not get any resits of course. Grades would likely plummet
- but that's your choice.
>
> > I could imagine setting exactly the same assignment at both GCSE and
> > A-level, expecting more complete/sophisticated answers from A-level
> students.
> >
Yeah. I'm sure it happens. Even with coursework.
--
Tina Eager
John Cartmell
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> But I suspect that from seeing the higher pass rates from public schools
> - that their quality of teaching is 20 times better.
Expectation.
When pupils and parents have high expectations teaching is far easier - and
far more rewarding. A good proportion of teachers will perform far below
their best when a number of pupils have low expectations and their
disaffection is supported by their parents.
Ian/Cath Ford
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Well I went to a state school and unfortunantly , "good teachers" are
>unheard off,
<cough, cough> Hmm, d'you hear the little oik Ginnie? Shall we break
his legs or just cut him off at the Alis's?
Careful old chap, some of us actually do that you know.
Ian
Tony Sheppard
(in article <a6djl0du9nndmk2kp...@4ax.com>):
Perhaps he just meant that the teachers weren't "good", rather that they were
"awesome"?
No?
ok ... break out the baseball bat then.
Tony
John Cartmell
I hope Samsonknight notes how long it took the teachers on these school ngs
to respond - possibly indicating just how much they're working to support
their students (appreciated or not! ;-)
Adam Atkinson
>Yeah , you do get some good teachers , however after having proper a-level
>maths tutoring by an individual that teaches at a v good university
>institute, I can see the inequality in the quality of teaching between the
>teachers in my old school and him. Maybe, I am just being overly harsh by
>generilising this for every state school , because after all each teacher is
>different.
Also, you haven't seen this person in front of a whole class.
One-on-one is very different.
>But I suspect that from seeing the higher pass rates from public
>schools - that their quality of teaching is 20 times better.
I don't know. As other people have said, different expectations count
for a lot.
>but when it came to the exams we all got baffled as you have to often find
>the question within the question and not just use a formula.
Well, yes.
> We lacked
>creativity in maths and flair , because we thought the formula would provide
>the magical answer.
Were you given formula sheets in the exam(s)?
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
In the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand
what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer. (T. Lehrer)
Samsonknight
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cf5bdc...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Yes , I apologised already for that comment! In my earlier thread . I was
just being overly pessimistic as already stated. I have had some good
teachers.
Samsonknight
"Tina Eager" <nos...@tavi.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W6UuQz2oisk0-p...@tikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:18:39 UTC, "Samsonknight"
> <samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Certainly the case in our school. It is predominantly the less able
> who
> > > take it or people who are looking for a fourth choice A level and who
> > > intend to drop it after AS. We use the ALIS stuff for grade
predictions
> > > and it seems to work OK. Even the more able students do less well at
ICT
> > > than other subjects.
> > >
> >
> > Great! I just got an A-level grade out of it and now it feels like such
a
> > waste.
>
> How so? You just got an A in a subject which is recognised as difficult.
> How is that a waste?
>
I got an A at GCSE and was using my A2 ICT coursework as an example of where
I got an 'A' by not following the teachers guide - hence highlighting the
problem with the teaching at the time. Overall I got a C at A-level - the
majority on my A2 set got Ds/Es. The aspect of the course I found difficult
were the actual examinations not the coursework, what I and many others
could never really understand is even though after revising the text , we
would get C's in the exam - we just didnt get why it was so hard to obtain
marks , even though we knew the *stuff*. I guess its probably because we
were not concise enough with out answers.
I am guilty with normalization - yes I had problems with that at first.But
what I was referring to was the theory side of things. I found it very vague
and recycled and for the degree I want to do - not very relevent. Natrually,
I am into the more practical side of computers and so if we were to learn
about software, networks etc I would prefer to learn about how they come to
be, instead of just learning some text from a book like a parrot without any
real understanding. I feel that being much more practical with computers is
far more of an asset then learning to the theory as it can be applied to the
office environment.
I should have done A - Level Computing, but unfortunantly my School didnt
offer it , and at the time I thought ICT would be a better alternative.
I agree, I remembered times when I just lost all motivation for doing the
course because it got to a point where I found the course extremely
longwinded and the teaching poor. This is the reason why I feel that a good
teacher is absolutely vital for ICT if students were to pass - to make it
much more interesting and keep students motivated. My frustration in wanting
the course to be much more practical (because as a student I wanted to learn
about programming, hardware, how networks are assembled etc) led to low
morale and hence my final grade. By the last unit, I didnt take it
seriously. I enjoyed doing the coursework as it allowed me to be creative by
letting me program a bit in VBA and scored high grades BA, but that was
about it.
> > I regret taking it , and in future I think that ICT should just be an
> > applied subject to those doing business studies, like statistics or
> > mechanics is to maths. That way, the irrelevent bits of the course would
be
> > snipped out and students like myself will not be discriminated against
for
> > doing a 'mickey mouse' subject. Also it will save us a lot of time by
> > allowing us to presue our other interests at A-level - in my case
> > politics/history or Art.
> >
> >
>
> But you haven't said what it is you think is irrelevant and why. A
> course as broadly based as ICT can't please all the people all the time
> and probably won't please any of the people all the time but that
> doesn't make it irrelevant in and of itself.
>
Those doing business studies - I believe ICT at this level is useful which
is why I think it should in future be an applied unit. However. for students
like myself I feel that much of it is very irrelevent, fair enough you learn
about the systems life cycle (which I guess is relevent) - but you learn
about that prior to your AS project and even at GCSE - at A2 its just
basically recycling that stuff and reusing it - therefore nothing new. My
interest in the subject dropped as a result, as I wanted to expand my
knowledge...Also , for someone like myself, as I mentioned briefly int his
thread I would prefer ICT to be much more practical, that way students will
know how to implemented what they have learnt in theory, because at the
moment students just learn the textbook like parrots and stick it in the
exam paper.So tell me, how is this a true test of someones ability in the
subject? Because I am 100% sure that many students have forgotten the theory
by now as all it was when they were doing ICT copy and paste...
Samsonknight
> On 28-Sep-04 19:28:21, Samsonknight said:
>
> >Yeah , you do get some good teachers , however after having proper
a-level
> >maths tutoring by an individual that teaches at a v good university
> >institute, I can see the inequality in the quality of teaching between
the
> >teachers in my old school and him. Maybe, I am just being overly harsh by
> >generilising this for every state school , because after all each teacher
is
> >different.
>
> Also, you haven't seen this person in front of a whole class.
> One-on-one is very different.
>
Yes, but his method of teaching is completely different, teachers at my
school could have taught maths the same way but to a wider audience, but
chose not to. I am sure that he doesnt change his teaching method for
lectures the at imperial, why would he?
> >But I suspect that from seeing the higher pass rates from public
> >schools - that their quality of teaching is 20 times better.
>
> I don't know. As other people have said, different expectations count
> for a lot.
>
> >but when it came to the exams we all got baffled as you have to often
find
> >the question within the question and not just use a formula.
>
> Well, yes.
>
> > We lacked
> >creativity in maths and flair , because we thought the formula would
provide
> >the magical answer.
>
> Were you given formula sheets in the exam(s)?
>
Yes, but they never had many formulas on there from what I remembered; and
the point I was trying to make was that we did lack creativity due to
overreliance on formulas. For example, if there was a question in the exam
paper about co-ordinate geometry, many of us would not try and solve the
question visually by drawing a graph and try and solve it that way, but
instead by using formulas without any real understanding of the question.If
we couldn't get the formula to work because the question requires you to use
another part of pure maths first to get to that bit in the first place, we
were stuffed.
black dog
Samsonknight contained the following:
>I agree, I remembered times when I just lost all motivation for doing the
>course because it got to a point where I found the course extremely
>longwinded and the teaching poor.
You've got to be pretty bloody creative to make the ICT spec even
remotely interesting. I've taught ICT and Computing and I wouldn't like
to have to do ICT again.
It's not always the teacher's fault you know.
--
black-dog
"Always spellcheck your wok to avoid mistakes"
Samsonknight
"black dog" <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:04okl0lidbok5ja6k...@4ax.com...
> I noticed that Message-ID: <cjd8kj$bj3$1...@titan.btinternet.com> from
> Samsonknight contained the following:
>
> >I agree, I remembered times when I just lost all motivation for doing the
> >course because it got to a point where I found the course extremely
> >longwinded and the teaching poor.
>
> You've got to be pretty bloody creative to make the ICT spec even
> remotely interesting. I've taught ICT and Computing and I wouldn't like
> to have to do ICT again.
>
> It's not always the teacher's fault you know.
>
No it isnt, your right...But from having a very good ICT teacher at GCSE
that made the subject fun, interesting and making you want to do the work
and then comparing that to another ICT teacher that was so regimental, of
whom gave you dodgy coursework guidance booklets (that would gaurenteed you
a C at maximum) of which I avoided using and just made you just sit down and
copy notes every lesson from that big fat AQA A-level ICT White book....it
makes you wonder.
The teachers job is to motivate the class, as well as to teach the students.
The students job is to learn and revise the class notes at home in
preperation for the exams. If the teachers make the subject so dead boring,
then how do you expect the student to give the course his/hers 100% effort.
Its not a one way street, goes both ways.
I got an A in ICT at GCSE and incidently high grades for my coursework at
A-level, and I refuse to believe that it was completely my fault for getting
a C overall at A-level. I believe that if the lessons were structured in a
much more interesting manner I would have achieved a higher grade, because I
would have been much more inclined to work harder. It is like a football
manager , his job is to nurture his football players in such a way that he
gets the best out of them. Similarly that is the case for this. Going around
making students copy out notes from the books like a parrot , is not the
right way to approach things.
Euan Beattie
> > If, as you seem to have done, evidence can be provided that students with
> > the same GCSE scores get higher grades in A-level Maths than A-level ICT,
> > then that is more convincing evidence that A-level ICT is harder than Maths
> > than a mere statement that more people get grade A in Maths than ICT.
>
> The issue is clouded by the other distinct possibility - that many A
> level ICT teachers don't know what they are doing and fail to deliver
> courses well enough to do their pupils justice. This is made all the
> more likely by the difficulty that teachers have in interpreting the
> syllabus for the problem solving U6 project.
That's it - spot on IMHO. There are many weak ICT teachers about...
many I think that have come via the business studies/typing CLAIT type
route and are not equipped to teach systems analysis or stretch the
kids in practical lessons with more advanced features of packages.
I've been on many a course where I have been shocked by folks
questions.... "Whats a relational database", "We did our relational
databases in Excel and they were moderated down" and so on.... also
you do get a number of poor sods who say "The head says I am to teach
A Level IT, I am a Physics teacher, where do I start"...
BUT even in establishments that have qualified staff (ask some PGCE
admissions tutors what their trainees IT skills are like... you'd be
shocked!) we struggle on trying to make sense of a spec....
"Describe the required elements of network environments including
hardware, software, communications and topology."
Where do we begin? In my view ICT has become a memory game of AQA
definitions and lists... mainly thanks to the vague spec resulting
in vague questions.
Shame really.
Liz Jordan
> many I think that have come via the business studies/typing CLAIT type
> route and are not equipped to teach systems analysis or stretch the
> kids in practical lessons with more advanced features of packages.
> I've been on many a course where I have been shocked by folks
> questions.... "Whats a relational database", "We did our relational
> databases in Excel and they were moderated down" and so on.... also
> you do get a number of poor sods who say "The head says I am to teach
> A Level IT, I am a Physics teacher, where do I start"...
>
> BUT even in establishments that have qualified staff (ask some PGCE
> admissions tutors what their trainees IT skills are like... you'd be
> shocked!) we struggle on trying to make sense of a spec....
>
I once worked with a colleague who was a trained Business Studies/ICT
teacher (PGCE). When I asked him what his PGCE had covered for ICT, the
most they did was simple (ie formulae, not even functions)of Excel. He had
never seen a GCSE spec, an A level spec, had not covered anything about GNVQ
or Key skills and had not even seen a National Curriculum IT document let
alone discussed the merits/drawbacks of cross-curricula v discrete lessons
approaches.
??
Liz
Dr A. N. Walker
Stuart Williams <j...@stuartwilliams.plus.com> wrote:
>This is naive, Matthew: when parents are paying many thousands of pounds
Not just parents; students too. "Interesting" times
ahead as u/gs increasingly get the impression that their fees
mean they are paying to be taught whatever they want to learn
rather than what univs want to teach.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
John Porcella
which can be added to one's CV.
Getting the top grade is not easy.
There are two projects which require a substantial amount of time, effort
and knowledge.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
black dog
Samsonknight contained the following:
>> It's not always the teacher's fault you know.
>>
>
>No it isnt, your right...But from having a very good ICT teacher at GCSE
>that made the subject fun, interesting and making you want to do the work
>and then comparing that to another ICT teacher that was so regimental, of
>whom gave you dodgy coursework guidance booklets (that would gaurenteed you
>a C at maximum) of which I avoided using and just made you just sit down and
>copy notes every lesson from that big fat AQA A-level ICT White book....it
>makes you wonder.
Well it would be wrong of me to comment, but it sounds like you got
someone who was unsure of the subject/course or both. Getting you to
copy notes is at least 'safe' if not ideal.
>
>The teachers job is to motivate the class, as well as to teach the students.
It's also a holy grail. If you ever find a foolproof way of doing it,
you'll make a fortune.
>The students job is to learn and revise the class notes at home in
>preperation for the exams. If the teachers make the subject so dead boring,
>then how do you expect the student to give the course his/hers 100% effort.
>Its not a one way street, goes both ways.
Yeah, I know. But much of the ICT spec bored the pants off me too.
>
>I got an A in ICT at GCSE and incidently high grades for my coursework at
>A-level, and I refuse to believe that it was completely my fault for getting
>a C overall at A-level. I believe that if the lessons were structured in a
>much more interesting manner I would have achieved a higher grade, because I
>would have been much more inclined to work harder. It is like a football
>manager , his job is to nurture his football players in such a way that he
>gets the best out of them. Similarly that is the case for this. Going around
>making students copy out notes from the books like a parrot , is not the
>right way to approach things.
I agree it's not ideal and I'll be generous and suggest there may have
been mitigating circumstances. OTOH you have learned that you should
not be reliant on the input of others to get good grades. It's a lesson
that will serve you well at university.
Matthew Huntbach
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Stuart Williams wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.04...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk says...
>> There are plenty of bad teachers in private schools. Bad teachers can more
>> easily get away with being bad in private schools because they will have
>> good pupils from well-motivated and connected backgrounds.
> This is naive, Matthew: when parents are paying many thousands of pounds
> a year, they won't tolerate bad teaching whatever the motivation of their
> children (or their "well-connectedness") might be. In my experience, the
> more motivated the pupils, the more stick they give poor teachers, and
> their parents quite rightly back them up.
How many teachers from private schools would be able to get remotely
similar results if they were dropped into teaching in a tough inner
city comprehensive? It's very easy to be a "good" teacher if you have
well motivated children from a background where education is valued.
The main thing I'm getting at is that I think the idea that difference
in performance between different schools is entirely down to the quality
of the teachers is nonsense. I would also hope it's not the case that
the private sector buys up every single one of the better quality
teachers. If it doesn't, it must logically follow that there exists
teachers in private schools who are worse teachers than some teachers
who are in state schools.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Samsonknight wrote:
>The teachers job is to motivate the class, as well as to teach the students.
Hence the point I made earlier about it being much easier if you have
students who are already motivated
Matthew Huntbach
John Porcella
"Stuart Williams" <j...@stuartwilliams.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc2557ec...@news.plus.net...
> In article <2fb7b718.04092...@posting.google.com>,
> m.tho...@ntlworld.com says...
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
> > not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
> > that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
> > incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
> > grade in (much harder than Maths!).
> > This may be either because the
> > standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
> >
>
> Yes, I noticed that and was stunned: it seems unlikely that it is harder
> (speaking as an amateur, the AS ICT papers look derisively easy).
They are only deceptively easy. Whilst you could knock up an answer with
little difficulty for most of the written papers, the examiner is looking
for more than mere answers than "the man in the street" could give. I have
had three goes at unit 1, and only just managed an A grade the first time,
the second time my mark fell to a mid-B and by the third time I got 100%.
Frankly, though, I thought all of my attempts were equally good. The trick
is to put down an answer that the examiner wants to see, and THAT is the
difficult bit. My tactic was simple; if the examiner wanted two reasons for
something, I gave three or more so that if they did not like an answer, they
could choose another.
So it
> could well be that the general standard of teaching is so bad that the
> average student performs worse in ICT than in Chemistry or Economics. Or
> perhaps students themselves think it a very easy subject and therefore
> devote all their revision energies to other subjects. Or the coursework
> scandal is still going on. Or....
The examiner is aware that people think that the paper is a pushover, so has
a strict marking schedule.
Michael Saunby
Indeed teacher performance may contribute significantly, but the variation
in performance may be slight, indeed it may be less significant that
variations in pay. Particularly if one considers variations in teacher pay
across Europe.
I recall reading that the difference in performance between the top
performing FTSE companies in any given sector can be 10 times that of the
lower performing. And that's comparing listed companies which haven't gone
bankrupt. Apparently centuries ago the same could be seen in the economic
and agricultural productivity of monasteries, and I'm sure a similar factor
of 10 performance difference will be seen today in schools, universities,
etc. What you don't generally see is a factor of 10 difference in the
performance of athletes, etc. so the generally held view is that these
large variations in performance of teams, organisations, institutions, etc.
are a result of variations in management practices rather than gifted
players, teachers, programmers, etc. Of course such people make a
difference, but the difference only becomes really significant when they're
working, competing, or whatever, in an appropriately structured
environment.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
And a regime in which that is the most highly valued teaching output. God
forbid that management might fool the teachers into thinking that exam
results, or some other output was more important.
Michael Saunby
John Porcella
> After completing a full A-level in ICT, I will have to say in *theory* it
is
> not a difficult subject. However what made it difficult was the overall
> *harshness* and *stingyness* in giving marks to pupils.
I agree. It is quite tricky to murder the papers since they only seem to
award marks if exactly like the model answer.
In examinations, it
> was difficult to get very high grades such as an A - because although the
> papers look relatively easy , you would have to be very precise and
concise
Precise, yes, but not necessarily concise.
> in what you write in the exam paper - you cannot waffle like in other
> subjects and still expect to get marks.
Yes, you can if the correct answer is in the waffle.
John Porcella
"Eatmorepies" <stop...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:2rr6lcF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> >
> > I am not sure where the 'hobby' subjects comment came from. I would
> > not class ICT in this way, or rate it as a Disney subject. I believe
> > that there is real value in what you do for ICT A Level. It is,
> > incidentally, statistically (ALIS) the hardest A level to get a good
> > grade in (much harder than Maths!). This may be either because the
> > standards are set too high or because the teaching is mixed.
> >
> >
>
> John
Harder in the sense that fewer get the top grade in ICT compared to maths.
Stuart Williams
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk says...
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Stuart Williams wrote:
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.04...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> > m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk says...
>
> >> There are plenty of bad teachers in private schools. Bad teachers can more
> >> easily get away with being bad in private schools because they will have
> >> good pupils from well-motivated and connected backgrounds.
>
> > This is naive, Matthew: when parents are paying many thousands of pounds
> > a year, they won't tolerate bad teaching whatever the motivation of their
> > children (or their "well-connectedness") might be. In my experience, the
> > more motivated the pupils, the more stick they give poor teachers, and
> > their parents quite rightly back them up.
>
> How many teachers from private schools would be able to get remotely
> similar results if they were dropped into teaching in a tough inner
> city comprehensive? It's very easy to be a "good" teacher if you have
> well motivated children from a background where education is valued.
Well, this puts us all on a hiding to nothing, doesn't it? Unless I can
point to incandescent results from the local sink school, you're not
going to allow me even to suggest that I might be a good teacher. I must
say, my idea of what a good (secondary) teacher is is closer to Andy
Walker's: interested in and knowledgeable about their subject and able to
encourage and inspire those who want to learn to become good
mathematicians or economists (or whatever). I'll say frankly that at
the age of 21 when I was deciding what sort of schools to apply to, I
consciously rejected the idea of teaching in institutions where three
quarters of the time you were struggling to get the class to shut up and
sit down (so signed on with a Direct Grant Grammar). The idea that having
motivated pupils somehow disguises or excuses bad teaching is just not
how it works in any independent school I know of (since parents can use
the maintained system - they don't come to us for our accents or
connections, believe me).
As it happens, if you dropped us into tough comps, we wouldn't be aiming
to get "remotely similar results": we'd be aiming to generate the same or
better "value added" that we do at the moment. Is it outrageous to
suggest that we might achieve just that? Or do you have to have been
brought up in One End Street in order to count for anything in this
comparison?
> The main thing I'm getting at is that I think the idea that difference
> in performance between different schools is entirely down to the quality
> of the teachers is nonsense.
It's been a long thread - where did someone say that?
> I would also hope it's not the case that
> the private sector buys up every single one of the better quality
> teachers. If it doesn't, it must logically follow that there exists
> teachers in private schools who are worse teachers than some teachers
> who are in state schools.
>
Of course: but we're making statistical generalisations, not propositions
in formal logic.
SW
Liz Jordan
"John Porcella" <bron...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cjeh7t$ot1$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>> [snip]
> They are only deceptively easy. Whilst you could knock up an answer with
> little difficulty for most of the written papers, the examiner is looking
> for more than mere answers than "the man in the street" could give. I
have
> had three goes at unit 1, and only just managed an A grade the first time,
> the second time my mark fell to a mid-B and by the third time I got 100%.
> Frankly, though, I thought all of my attempts were equally good. The
trick
> is to put down an answer that the examiner wants to see, and THAT is the
> difficult bit. My tactic was simple; if the examiner wanted two reasons
for
> something, I gave three or more so that if they did not like an answer,
they
> could choose another.
>
I like the idea of advising the students to play safe and give more than
asked just in case they miss the point being asked for on one of the answers
but will this work?
Are there any A level examiners out there (in particular AQA) to give advice
on this strategy. If a question asks for 2 reasons for ..... and the
candidate gives 3 where the first or second is a bit iffy, would the 3rd get
taken into account or ignored? I
Lionel Smith
Mark Thomas <m.tho...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The point of the several articles, that I linked, was that programming
> is increasingly going to go offshore
Indeed and a worrying trend for a number of reasons not least security.
> and that our young people need to gain skills not in coding but in
> requirements analysis etc. This is precisely what ICT A level starts
> them on - and this wasn't being recognised by 'Computing'.
OK But if that is all it does then that will not produce those with the
capabilities and skills necessary to ensure that code produced offshore
is not full of potentially malicious code.
Lionel
--
___ ______
/ / / ___/ 4 children | Sea Vixen for pugnacity
/ / ionel A.| \ mith 8 grandchildren, | Hunter for elegance
/ /____ __\ | no wonder life is a breeze | Phantom for clout
/_______/ /_____/ http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lionels | ZFC B+4+4
From an OS that Windows is too young to remember. ;-)
Lionel Smith
Kev Crocombe <ke...@MYSURNAMEHERE.co.uk> wrote:
> The difference is that the big engineering failures usually led to a
> loss of life and the situation had to be sorted out with a mandatory
> qualification level for engineering. In IT - usually its just lost money
> and time
How can you be so sure?
> so the need for change isn't seen as so pressing.
I am not so sanguine.
Consider the recently reported air-traffic problem on the US West Coast
due to a problem that was almost certainly related to the use of a system
subject to a 49.7 day shutdown problem.
See comp.risks Riks Digests 23.54 and 23.53
Worth subscribing to this low volume group, you will certainly become
more aware of the real dangers in coding failures. Remember that modern
engineering relies heavily on the use of computer code.
John Cartmell
Stuart Williams <j...@stuartwilliams.plus.com> wrote:
> As it happens, if you dropped us into tough comps, we wouldn't be aiming
> to get "remotely similar results": we'd be aiming to generate the same or
> better "value added" that we do at the moment. Is it outrageous to
> suggest that we might achieve just that? Or do you have to have been
> brought up in One End Street in order to count for anything in this
> comparison?
I can't be the only one to have taught in a range of schools and found that
the outcomes I could trigger varied considerably between one school and
another. In some your concentration is on the subject and the pupils'
understanding of what you're teaching - in others you feel lucky, but
drained, to have survived another lesson.
black dog
from Stuart Williams contained the following:
>As it happens, if you dropped us into tough comps, we wouldn't be aiming
>to get "remotely similar results": we'd be aiming to generate the same or
>better "value added" that we do at the moment. Is it outrageous to
>suggest that we might achieve just that? Or do you have to have been
>brought up in One End Street in order to count for anything in this
>comparison?
I actually knew someone from an independent school who moved to a HOD
job in a comp. I don't think he handled the behaviour much better than
me despite being a high flyer in the private sector. And this was a
good way from being a sink school.
black dog
<Pine.LNX.4.61.04...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk> from Matthew
Huntbach contained the following:
>>The teachers job is to motivate the class, as well as to teach the students.
>
>Hence the point I made earlier about it being much easier if you have
>students who are already motivated
I'd have settled for being remotely interested in being there...
Toby
Surely it depends upon whether marks are taken away for bad answers,
and I don't think they are.
Michael Saunby
"Toby" <*nospam*tobacious*spam-me-and-perish*@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:b4ull0pjp4ii4k3bh...@4ax.com...
So what should happen in an extreme case where a question asks for a single
name, or date, or some other particular value and the students writes a
long list of names, dates, or whatever?
It ought to be a fail; they've not followed the instructions. Even the
most generous exam/examiner would surely have to weight the mark, so if 2
reasons were asked for and 3 given then each correct reason would get 1/3
of the marks for the question rather than 1/2 - and in my view that would
still be over generous.
Michael Saunby
John Cartmell
dog<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> I noticed that Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.61.04...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk> from Matthew
> Huntbach contained the following:
> >>The teachers job is to motivate the class, as well as to teach the
> >>students.
> >
> >Hence the point I made earlier about it being much easier if you have
> >students who are already motivated
> I'd have settled for being remotely interested in being there...
"Why did you choose to do GCSE IT?"
"cause Miss[Head of Y9] said it was easy and I can't be bothered to do
anythin - an' wi' four of us like that it'll be right giggle"
John Cartmell
<msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
> So what should happen in an extreme case where a question asks for a
> single name, or date, or some other particular value and the students
> writes a long list of names, dates, or whatever?
> It ought to be a fail; they've not followed the instructions. Even the
> most generous exam/examiner would surely have to weight the mark, so if
> 2 reasons were asked for and 3 given then each correct reason would get
> 1/3 of the marks for the question rather than 1/2 - and in my view that
> would still be over generous.
Marking schemes I've encountered would ask you to mark the first 2 and
ignore the third - or even mark them all wrong.
Ian/Cath Ford
<samsonk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Yes , I apologised already for that comment! In my earlier thread . I was
>just being overly pessimistic as already stated. I have had some good
>teachers.
Oi, now don't you go spoiling all the fun now.
Bloody typical. You start having a real go and they come over all
apologetic *:-)*
Of course, I get news in, go off and write later and then get more
news in. I did see your apology, of course, but later.
Ian
Ian/Cath Ford
<*nospam*tobacious*spam-me-and-perish*@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Surely it depends upon whether marks are taken away for bad answers,
>and I don't think they are.
True, marks in my experience are never taken away for writing
something stupid etc.
The issue here is that tecnically it's a rubric offence - the paper
says give 2 and they give 18 or something. Or 1 and they give 4. As
Michael says it can get daft (imagine: Q. Which of A, B or C does
such-and-such; Ans: A, B, C. I *can't* mark that right....).
Having said that, in my experience at foundation geography gcse
(**very** different to A Level anything....) we'd mark whatever was on
the paper in most sensible cases. It depends upon the markscheme
really and the way in which the team interprets it.
Ian