The state of Technology Education in UK
Mike Paling
Hi there ...... would anybody like to comment?
I have just been told that Technology is no longer a compulsary part of the
curriclum at *some* levels in the UK.
Can anybody confirm this?
What is the current situation?
--
Regards, Mike Paling <Acorn RiscPC user - and proud to be different!>
New Plymouth, New Zealand
Ian Lynch
Mike Paling <mpa...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
> I have just been told that Technology is no longer a compulsary part of
> the curriclum at *some* levels in the UK.
Perhaps this is a reference to relaxing the national curriculum in
primary schools?
By technology do you mean information technology and design and
technology or one or the other?
--
Ian
Mike Paling
In article <n4AA...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
I was under the impression that "Technolgy", as specified by the National
Curriclum, covered all aspects including IT, Design Technology, Electronics,
etc. I didn't realise it was split up into different parts. Here in NZ
"Technolgy" is all-encompassing.
Perhaps the rumour that I heard concerned primary schools - can anybody
explain why things have been *relaxed* - and in what way?
What is the position at secondary schools?
Ian Lynch
Mike Paling <mpa...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
> What is the position at secondary schools?
Information technology and design and technology are compulsory subjects
for all secondary schools for all pupils in the 11-16 age range. The
delivery is varied with some schools teaching IT entirely across the
curriculum (to varying degrees of unsuccess :-) ) and some teaching
specialist lessons, sometimes only in specific years. Nearly all schools
teach specialist design and technology lessons for 10% of the time, but
some do 5% in the 14-16 age range for some pupils.
In most schools the balance of technology is still towards cooking food,
sewing and embroidery, making containers and bits and pieces out of wood
albeit tied up with the design process. However, this is changing and
there is more IT involvement some electronics and control and an
increase in projects involving several inter-related
materials/technologies. There is a dearth of IT based graphic design
which in a subject called Design and Technology seems rather difficult
to defend in principle.
> Here in NZ "Technolgy" is all-encompassing.
It is in theory here but the legacy skills of staff tend to make the
projects reflect the existing expertise of teachers. In addition, the
use of IT to support say redrafting in English does not have a lot in
common with designing a child's toy in design and technology. A lot
depends on what you mean by technology and that debate has been raging
for 20 years in the UK.
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: There is a dearth of IT based graphic design
: which in a subject called Design and Technology seems rather difficult
: to defend in principle.
That all depends on what was meant by design. Graphic design doesn't really
have anything to do with engineering and product design and would probably be
part of the art curriculum.
Ian
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> That all depends on what was meant by design. Graphic design doesn't
> really have anything to do with engineering and product design and would
> probably be part of the art curriculum.
So how much engineering and product design is not done using a computer
these days? Design as in design and technology as opposed to art and
design would mainly be associated with designing and making products.
Perhaps sketching ideas by hand but the final drawings would be done on
a computer in nearly all cases outside school. Engineering drawings,
graphic illustrations of advertisements, architects plans. You name it
and its a job for CAD. In contrast, with a few exceptions, very little
computer drawing is done in schools, not even to draw simple diagrams.
My own 16 year old has sat colouring for three hours because "that is
what we have to do to get a good mark". The reason is that many teachers
who know how to draw with a pencil don't know how to use computers.
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
: > That all depends on what was meant by design. Graphic design doesn't
: > really have anything to do with engineering and product design and would
: > probably be part of the art curriculum.
: So how much engineering and product design is not done using a computer
: these days?
You misunderstand me, or perhaps we misunderstand each other. Of course
computers are essential to the design process, and of course "computers"
means computer graphics. However, engineering design (arriving at a form of
a product) is nothing to do with graphic design (producing a new logo for
BP). The mechanics of using a computer drawing package may be similar, but the
disciplines are quite different: no one in the department of engineering
design with which I occasionally work would describe themselves as a graphic
designer.
: Perhaps sketching ideas by hand but the final drawings would be done on
: a computer in nearly all cases outside school. Engineering drawings,
: graphic illustrations of advertisements, architects plans. You name it
: and its a job for CAD.
And despie that, you know, IMechE still do not recognize drawings done on
CAD systems when accrediting degrees. Sometimes I think that to call them
dinosaurs is to insult large reptiles needlessly...
: In contrast, with a few exceptions, very little
: computer drawing is done in schools, not even to draw simple diagrams.
I doubt if drawing with a computer is much harder or easier than drawing
with a pen, whether the product is an engineering drawing or a landscape.
The engineering or creative ability is far more important than the
medium.
: My own 16 year old has sat colouring for three hours because "that is
: what we have to do to get a good mark". The reason is that many teachers
: who know how to draw with a pencil don't know how to use computers.
Well as I've written before, I'm not sure that if it's true, it matters that
much. Someone who is going to be good at maths, languages or art will be
good if they are well taught whether or not that includes computers.
However, it may well also be the case that schools tend not to have the
equipment for good drawing or CAD. Mice are practically hopeless and
digitising tablets, which you need if you are going to be halfway serious
about technical drawing, cost as much as a PC at the moment.
Ian
Robert Chrismas
i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk (Ian Lynch) wrote:
> In contrast, with a few exceptions, very little
> computer drawing is done in schools, not even
> to draw simple diagrams.
(Oh no! I'm going to agree with Ian)
I get worried about GNVQ IT core work.
The range criteria seem to give equal weight to IT
involving words, numbers and graphics.
When I look at *some* portfolios of evidence the
only graphics seems to be a few graphs drawn
automatically by spreadsheets. It won't do.
(Mind you I also worry that the criteria say nothing
about colour, about sound, very little about combining
media .... )
Staffrom pedant (exact status under negotiation
- there are other candidates)
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> However, engineering design (arriving at a form of a product) is
> nothing to do with graphic design (producing a new logo for BP).
Agreed.
> And despie that, you know, IMechE still do not recognize drawings done
> on CAD systems when accrediting degrees. Sometimes I think that to call
> them dinosaurs is to insult large reptiles needlessly...
And I thought schools were in danger of being behind the times :-)
> I doubt if drawing with a computer is much harder or easier than drawing
> with a pen, whether the product is an engineering drawing or a
> landscape. The engineering or creative ability is far more important
> than the medium.
Except that for some pupils the satisfaction of producing a decent
diagram which they can amend and experiment with is a great motivator.
Rather the same argument as using a word processor for drafting in
English. The tool does affect the methodology and the quality of the
output because confident word processor users tend to cut and paste and
move ideas around in a different way to hand writers. I wish I had a
pound for all the adults who encourage children to write it out first
then type it into the computer because that is the way they feel happy,
not because its the best approach for a child who has not yet developed
such hang-ups.
> Well as I've written before, I'm not sure that if it's true, it matters
> that much.
No more than learning to write with a pen I suppose.
> However, it may well also be the case that schools tend not to have the
> equipment for good drawing or CAD.
!Draw on an aging A310 can actually do quite a lot.
> Mice are practically hopeless and digitising tablets, which you need if
> you are going to be halfway serious about technical drawing, cost as
> much as a PC at the moment.
This I disagree with entirely. I have produced professional graphic
animations for broadcast TV with tools typically available to most
schools for a few 10s of pounds. The knowledge and skill is the limiting
factor in most cases not the sophistication of the equipment.
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
: > I doubt if drawing with a computer is much harder or easier than drawing
: > with a pen, whether the product is an engineering drawing or a
: > landscape. The engineering or creative ability is far more important
: > than the medium.
: Except that for some pupils the satisfaction of producing a decent
: diagram which they can amend and experiment with is a great motivator.
A good point, but let's not forget that some will be more motivated by
conventional drawing methods and try to offer as wide a range of options
as possible
: > Mice are practically hopeless and digitising tablets, which you need if
: > you are going to be halfway serious about technical drawing, cost as
: > much as a PC at the moment.
: This I disagree with entirely. I have produced professional graphic
: animations for broadcast TV with tools typically available to most
: schools for a few 10s of pounds. The knowledge and skill is the limiting
: factor in most cases not the sophistication of the equipment.
I did say "technical drawing" and I stick to my guns - if you're going to
be serious about producing engineering drawings it is much easier to use a
digitising tablet or equivalent than a mouse. For more freehand work a mouse
is fine. The last time I had someone at the BBC producing graphics for
broadcast for me (he institutional-named dropped, gracefully) the Mac and
NT workstations were indeed mouse driven, but with some very very fancy
software tools and monitors which I doubt any school could afford.
That is not to disparage cheaper kit at all, but unless the hardware is up
to scratch I'd recommend schools not even to try CAD and stick to paper
for technical drawing.
Ian
Ian Lynch
Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> (Mind you I also worry that the criteria say nothing about colour, about
> sound, very little about combining media .... )
Probably because they think ICT is working as a secretary in an office
;-)
--
Ian
Robert Chrismas
i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk (Ian Lynch) wrote:
> > However, it may well also be the case that
> > schools tend not to have the
> > equipment for good drawing or CAD.
Even if it were true that would not be sufficent
reason for not trying. When departments tell me their
equipment is inadequate I say "show me what you can
do with you inadequate equipment. If the limitation is
the equipment I will back your bid for better." Mostly
it turns out they are waiting for the latest equipment
before trying to do anything.
> !Draw on an aging A310 can actually do quite a lot.
My students are more arty than technical design.
They have access to programs like Corel Draw and Photoshop
whihc are pretty upmarket. Still the vector drawing the
do with !Draw is much faster, and, unless they want some
special Corel draw feature, better than on more expensive
programs. Students with talent produce good work, never
mind the program. (I might mention the teaching as well,
but truth is I'm still feeling my way with this arty stuff).
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> I did say "technical drawing" and I stick to my guns - if you're going
> to be serious about producing engineering drawings it is much easier to
> use a digitising tablet or equivalent than a mouse.
At what level? We are talking about pupils and staff most of whom have
never produced a drawing on a computer before. Its rather like saying
children have to start reading with adult books and we won't teach them
to read until there are "serious" books available. The principles of
drawing programs are very similar. Shapes, fills, line styles, grids,
grouping objects etc. and drawing on a computer is a fundamentally
different thing to drawing by hand. So do we say that we don't teach any
computer based drawing until everyone has a workstation with AutoCad and
a graphics tablet or do we say that we have a lot of existing machines
where transferrable skills and principles can be taught. The latter
being in my mind education, the former training.
In fact graphics tablets and other input devices are readily available
so if you really want to be that pedantic we can go down that route. I
would be happy to see some people actually learning to walk before they
ran. Arguing about the nature of resources has been the single biggest
smokescreen for avoiding the issue of teacher training in ICT. You know
its because we haven't got the 2 billion Giga doh dah MMX Blah blah
that we can't reach the higher levels when in fact you observe the kids
not even using the spacebar in a word processor correctly.
> That is not to disparage cheaper kit at all, but unless the hardware is
> up to scratch I'd recommend schools not even to try CAD and stick to
> paper for technical drawing.
What do you mean by up to scratch? Why can't primary school aged
children learn to use a simple vector drawing package to draw simple
diagrams as a precursor to more advanced work later? In fact, the sad
fact is that most KS4 pupils don't know how to use the drawing tools in
MS Word to draw a diagram. My son is doing a degree in Computer Aided
Design and he has found learning some basic concepts in things like Draw
very useful - in fact for simple illustrations he still uses it.
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
: > I did say "technical drawing" and I stick to my guns - if you're going
: > to be serious about producing engineering drawings it is much easier to
: > use a digitising tablet or equivalent than a mouse.
: The principles
: drawing programs are very similar. Shapes, fills, line styles, grids,
: grouping objects etc. and drawing on a computer is a fundamentally
: different thing to drawing by hand.
I really don't think so. When I'm doing engineering drawings I use at least
six line styles - the academic bit is knowing which line style to select, and
whether the selection is done by clicking on the "thicker line" box or
picking up the 0.5mm pen is pretty irrelevant. I'm worried that what you are
suggesting is really just training in computer use which, worthy aim though
it may be, isn't really the same thing as learning how to communicate
graphically.
: So do we say that we don't teach any
: computer based drawing until everyone has a workstation with AutoCad and
: a graphics tablet or do we say that we have a lot of existing machines
: where transferrable skills and principles can be taught.
I've already said that my remarks only apply to technical drawing and that
low spec machines can quite happily be used for other drawing purposes.
: The latter
: being in my mind education, the former training.
Well, that depends. If all you're doing is teaching people how to use
computer programs, then it's training. If you're teaching them to
construct drawings well and appropriately, that's teaching. Which of
course can be done using computers but which can just as easily be
done without.
: In fact graphics tablets and other input devices are readily available
: so if you really want to be that pedantic we can go down that route.
Of course they are, but they're still very expensive, are they not? Last
time I looked a half-way decent A3 ablet was arounfd 1000 quid.
Anyone interested in this debate might find Open University course
T293 Communicating Technology of interest (he plugged, shamelessly).
http://www.open.ac.uk has all the details. And yes, I did write some of it!
Ian
Leon Cych
In article <n4BB...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
>What do you mean by up to scratch? Why can't primary school aged
>children learn to use a simple vector drawing package to draw simple
>diagrams as a precursor to more advanced work later? In fact, the sad
>fact is that most KS4 pupils don't know how to use the drawing tools in
>MS Word to draw a diagram.
And aren't they clunky - good job too!
Now let's get real here Ian.
I have been responsible for levelling in writing a SOW for ICT
boroughwide and we're tackling it in two ways.
Skills based activities and Curriculum based activities.
Now it's fine and dandy to teach a lot of year 6's (or younger) one or
two particular skills in vector drawing cold.
But getting them to apply them to a wider curriculum project is going to
take some time - especially if you only have one computer between 30
children. And what do you do with the 29 or 26 others in the meantime.
Yes, have a rota by all means - have a timetable of progression but kids
are still going to have to design and redesign off-computer to actually
get the brief finished - have you ever time-managed a project like this
in a primary school - it would take half a term at least.
A child can be taught how to apply a vector tool in seconds but the
other 20 skills involving ontime redesigning is quite a tall order to
manage even if there has been progression up the school. After all you
will be competing with a graphics program rota, a word processing rota,
a database rota, a control rota, a desktop publishing rota, an Internet
and CD rom retrieval rota, a LOGO rota and a multi-media rota all on the
same computer with 30 + children.
Dyson used masking tape etc. for X no of prototypes for his vacuum.
Likewise kids can plan/ model an outline of writing on paper and flesh
it out on word processor.
So too can they model offline working using paper because it ain't
practical in schools with limited resources. If you can show me a way of
working efficiently at this level with the limits of those particular
resource constraints I would like to see it - I really would?
I'm NOT talking copy typing here but I think the analogy between CAD and
word processors is a little skewed. To be honest I'd have to square my
conscience but on the other hand I like kids to get a result.
I teach year 3 and I find nothing wrong, for example, with getting them
to design a car logo on paper and go through 10/ 20 redesigns and then
teach them some skills "through" copying that design onto a graphics
program - they can then redesign it again. To get them to design from
scratch would be a disaster IMHO unless that is to be a dedicated focus
in that yeargroup and be prepared for lots of 1 : 1 input for a fair
chunk before it takes off - then what else do you sideline? Plus you
have the added "bonus" of young children unable to give you a model of
what they want until they are fluent in those skills.
I am not making excuses here but I think you have to think very
carefully about what you are doing. If you are going to teach certain
things through copy typing then be upfront about your objectives and
outcomes. Thjis is just to put capital letters and full stops in or sort
words - it ain't writing a novel.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that children lower down in the
junior school can be taught the elements of design and redesigning quite
easily and that can be managed quite easily but the progression needs to
be 'stage managed' to
a) Get a result that doesn't switch them off.
b) Keeps them on track for that progression up the school.
c) Keep all the plates spinning.
Notice I haven't mentioned literacy or numeracy hour once Ian.
--
Leon Cych
http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/allsouls/index.html
(Resources and fun things for busy Key Stage 2 teachers)
John Arrowsmith
In article <n4B5...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
>Engineering drawings,
>graphic illustrations of advertisements, architects plans. You name it
>and its a job for CAD.
Ian
Having - last Autumn - been to see a number of school students in their
work experience placements, I can categorically state that out of four
firms of architects visited, two were 50/50 in their use of the "old"
drawing board and/or the computer, one was entirely drawing-board based
though they'd just acquired a CAD package to play with (on a standalone
PC), and one firm was entirely drawing-board.
So not *entirely* "it's a job for CAD" at the moment in the architects'
offices around here ;-)
John
--
John Arrowsmith,
hosting South Hunsley School's Newsletters
at http://www.arrowsmith.demon.co.uk
and
South Hunsley School's Global Rock Challenge News
at http://www.arrowsmith.demon.co.uk/globrck1.htm
Robert Chrismas
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> That is not to disparage cheaper kit at all, but unless the hardware is
> up to scratch I'd recommend schools not even to try CAD and stick to
> paper for technical drawing.
I loved technical drawing at school, when it was a
paper and pencil job. I'd like to (if only we had
enough time for everything I want) see all children
having a go with a drawing board and a chisel edged
pencil.
But they should experience what can be done with IT as well.
If we are talking about them producing 2D drawings
as part of their education then the IT available in
most schools is fine. Arguably, when you start, you want
a program which has a few simple tools, is quick to
start and easy to use. There are ideas, skills and
techniques associated with using a computer for design
work which can be taught with simple drawing packages.
As I've said, I'm teaching a more art oriented course
these days, and a simple program like !Draw is terrific
for that. Just to name one area, pattern making, I know
there are program which automate the process, but when they
start, with Draw they can copy a motif, rotate and mirror
it to explore design possibilities. I could make a whole
year's work out of pattern making with !Draw if only I
did not have to cover so much else! I don't have the time
to spend ages teaching the features of some terribly
powerful program.
(Similarly incidentally with word processing, and DTP -
easy to use, fast and friendly are much more important
that all singing and dancing, because I want to start
using the package rather than spending ages just teaching
how the package works.)
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> I really don't think so. When I'm doing engineering drawings I use at
> least six line styles - the academic bit is knowing which line style to
> select,
Try and get down to the level of someone who hardly knows which way
round a mouse operates. All of this is irrelevant detail. Its about
training in the specific techniques of engineering drawing. Before you
have hands on and understand that you *can* change the line style and
when to zoom in or out and why that might be useful you have to have
some opportunities to experiment. You are talking about training, I am
talking about education. Not education as in = academic but education as
in producing transferrable practical skills. I am surprised given your
previous posts that you do not seem to recognise this difference.
> I'm worried that what you are suggesting is really just training in
> computer use which, worthy aim though it may be, isn't really the same
> thing as learning how to communicate graphically.
Quite the reverse. On your logic we would not teach children to write
because that is simply a technical skill and what matters is their
ability to compose prose. Perhaps we should not provide very young
children with the means to draw because they can't appreciate
perspective until they are much older? No musical
instruments until they have learnt music theory and have access to a
Steinway? Technological education is not just about the academic, IMHO
its about enabling people to understand practical skills and tools so
that they can easily adapt to a wide variety of situations whether in
engineering, aesthetic art, or drawing a labelled diagram for a DTP'd
science report.
> I've already said that my remarks only apply to technical drawing
Ok, define technical drawing?
My son designed his A level DT project using a simple vector graphics
program. The drawings were to scale, sufficiently detailed to make a
parts list and with views from different perspectives. Is this a
technical drawing and was it better to do it this way than by hand?
Since he made several modifications to the drawings as a result of
testing designs I would say that using the computer actually aided his
designing because it encouraged him to make modifications he would not
have done otherwise. That is the crux of my argument. Just as with Word
processing the methods by which we work are fundamentally different when
using IT. You have to gain familiarity with the tools first and young
children do this rather better than adults - hence teaching handwriting
in primary schools.
> Well, that depends. If all you're doing is teaching people how to use
> computer programs, then it's training. If you're teaching them to
> construct drawings well and appropriately, that's teaching.
You can't separate the technical skills from the higher order ones.
There is a bit of professional snobbery about all this. Technical
skills are beneath teachers etc. That is one of the big weaknesses in
National Curriculum IT. Lots of nice high order stuff described in the
criteria but no consensus on the underlying skills. That is exactly why
pupils are still word processing with bad technique. Interesting that
the same logic is not applied to handwriting - not a mention of keyboard
skills yet handwriting is prominent. All part of a society which
fundamentally does not understand technology at the level policy is
made.
> Which of course can be done using computers but which can just as
> easily be done without.
I think the ways of working are fundamentally different when using IT.
I don't think these things can be done "just as well without". We can
ingrain pupils in the old habits or nurture the new ones. For my kids I
know what I choose and if its good enough for my kids it probably is for
other peoples'.
<Graphics tablets.>
> Of course they are, but they're still very expensive, are they not? Last
> time I looked a half-way decent A3 ablet was around 1000 quid.
Genius do one for primary schools at 45 ukp. A4 serial from WACOM 275
ukp, A3 479 ukp. If you shop around you can probably get them cheaper.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
John Arrowsmith <jo...@arrowsmith.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Having - last Autumn - been to see a number of school students in their
> work experience placements, I can categorically state that out of four
> firms of architects visited, two were 50/50 in their use of the "old"
> drawing board and/or the computer, one was entirely drawing-board based
> though they'd just acquired a CAD package to play with (on a standalone
> PC), and one firm was entirely drawing-board.
> So not *entirely* "it's a job for CAD" at the moment in the architects'
> offices around here ;-)
I have done a lot of work over the past 5 years with a variety of
architects working on school buildings. They fall into 3 categories.
Those who are entirely CAD based, those who are moving to CAD and those
who will go out of business. If your son or daughter was thinking of
going into architecture in say 10 years time (realistic given the HE
requirements) would you prefer them to learn some drawing and design
skills on a computer, or would colouring title pages decorated with
bubble writing be preferrable? I know which I would want for my kids.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
Leon Cych <le...@poetry.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Now let's get real here Ian.
I am always real - I am noted for it :-)
> Now it's fine and dandy to teach a lot of year 6's (or younger) one or
> two particular skills in vector drawing cold.
If you give them the same access as to paper and pencil they will
surprise you. That's the real issue. In principle would this be a good
thing?
> especially if you only have one computer between 30 children.
I agree entirely. I identified a problem related to DT - mainly in
secondary schools actually but I imagine primaries will have their
problems too. Even those with quite a lot of access to computers don't
get the best from them. While people will say there isn't time,
observing a lot of the things I see in DT lessons - hours spent
sandpapering, cutting up catalogues and colouring in bubble writing - I
can't help thinking that the time might not be better spent on something
like learning CAD. Graphics courses where they never use a
computer? And you tell me to get real? - Come on even the conservative
architects have thrown away their drawing boards. Access is a
fundamental problem although machine prices are tumbling and performance
is rising so its liklely that the situation will improve. OTOH, kids
will just get the machines at home, realise school is irrelevant and not
bother turning up any more ;-)
You can highlight all the problems but the fact remains that we don't
have the same hangups about teaching handwriting which is enormously
time consuming, or hand drawings, or a whole host of other things.
Perhaps we need to scrap the NC or start holding the Government to
account for things like "appropriate use of in IT support of subjects".
> I suppose what I'm trying to say is that children lower down in the
> junior school can be taught the elements of design and redesigning quite
> easily and that can be managed quite easily but the progression needs to
> be 'stage managed' to
> a) Get a result that doesn't switch them off. b) Keeps them on track for
> that progression up the school. c) Keep all the plates spinning.
I can't disagree with any of this. I think perhaps you have misconstrued
what I was getting at which was simply that there is a lot of low grade
colouring and drawing going on in secondary schools and very little
effort being made to use IT facilities which are often either idle or
employed in something like poor standard word processing. People pay a
lot of money for things like M$ Word yet few people seem to know how to
use it properly.
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
: > I really don't think so. When I'm doing engineering drawings I use at
: > least six line styles - the academic bit is knowing which line style to
: > select,
: Try and get down to the level of someone who hardly knows which way
: round a mouse operates. All of this is irrelevant detail. Its about
: training in the specific techniques of engineering drawing.
No it's not no it's not no it's not. read the last sentence from me again:
"the academic bit is knowing which line style to use". That doesn't mean
"knowing what it says in BS whatever", it means "recognizing that a
change in line style would aid communication and then deciding which line
style would do best". It's all about understanding the purpose of graphic
communication. Now, whether the line style is selected by picking up a pen
or clicking on an icon is supremely irrelevant to these decisions.
: Before you
: have hands on and understand that you *can* change the line style and
: when to zoom in or out and why that might be useful you have to have
: some opportunities to experiment. You are talking about training, I am
: talking about education. Not education as in = academic but education as
: in producing transferrable practical skills. I am surprised given your
: previous posts that you do not seem to recognise this difference.
I'm sorry Ian, I think we are talking utterly at cross purposes here. You
seem to be defining "learning how to use a computer package" as education
and "learning what to do with it" as training. I take completely the
opposite view.
: Quite the reverse. On your logic we would not teach children to write
: because that is simply a technical skill and what matters is their
: ability to compose prose. Perhaps we should not provide very young
: children with the means to draw because they can't appreciate
: perspective until they are much older? No musical
: instruments until they have learnt music theory and have access to a
: Steinway?
Christ-all-bloody-mighty. Let me try again.
You can start children playing music on many different instruments:
piano, xylophone, recorder, cornamuse or ocarina. It doesn't really
matter which they start on because the musical skills they are acquiring
are not, at first, terribly dependent on the instrument. When they get
to Grade 8 Piano, however, it is necessary to let them have access to
a reasonably good piano.
Now compare with
You can start children on technical drawing with different media:
paper and pencil or computer. It doesn't really
matter which they start on because the communication skills they are
acquiring are not, at first, terribly dependent on the input method. When
they get to A-Level Electronics, however, it is necessary to let them
have access to good drawing equipment, whether CAD or paper-based.
: Technological education is not just about the academic, IMHO
: its about enabling people to understand practical skills and tools so
: that they can easily adapt to a wide variety of situations whether in
: engineering, aesthetic art, or drawing a labelled diagram for a DTP'd
: science report.
I don't disagree with that. I think it is quite possible to
achieve these aims with modest equipment. Perhaps we should just agree to
differ: I think it's possible to teach and learn well without a computer
and you don't.
> I've already said that my remarks only apply to technical drawing
: Ok, define technical drawing?
"Graphical information intended solely to convey information about the
shape, topology or assembly of manufactured products, with aesthetic
qualities irrelevant. For example: third-angle projections, assembly
drawing, circuit diagrams"
: My son designed his A level DT project using a simple vector graphics
: program. The drawings were to scale, sufficiently detailed to make a
: parts list and with views from different perspectives. Is this a
: technical drawing and was it better to do it this way than by hand?
I have no idea, not having seen the drawings. Since he could have done the
same thing with pencil and paper, it doesn't matter a dicky bird. What
matters is a) whether the designed object met the appropriate
criteria and b) whether the drawings adequately conveyed the necessary
information.
I have used CAD systems myself. I have done technical drawings by hand
myself. If the project is big and a CAD system is handy I'll use it,
but for a quick one off job I'll probably do it by hand. So what?
: > Well, that depends. If all you're doing is teaching people how to use
: > computer programs, then it's training. If you're teaching them to
: > construct drawings well and appropriately, that's teaching.
: You can't separate the technical skills from the higher order ones.
Oh yes you can - or are you saying that it is impossible to learn technical
drawing without Autocad? There are skills in doing circuit diagrams which
are directly transferrable to doing assembly diagrams.
: Interesting that
: the same logic is not applied to handwriting - not a mention of keyboard
: skills yet handwriting is prominent.
Perhaps because most people don't do much typing, and it is easily learnt,
when required, at any age?
: All part of a society which
: fundamentally does not understand technology at the level policy is
: made.
How true!
: > Which of course can be done using computers but which can just as
: > easily be done without.
: I think the ways of working are fundamentally different when using IT.
There is the nub of our difference. I don't think there's the slightest
chance we'll ever agree.
: I don't think these things can be done "just as well without". We can
: ingrain pupils in the old habits or nurture the new ones.
Unfortunately the new ones we think they need are still only our opinion.
We'll have to wait for a generation of teachers brought up in the IT age
before we get really sensible policy in this.
: For my kids I
: know what I choose and if its good enough for my kids it probably is for
: other peoples'.
As pro-capital punishment creationist parents probably say too...
Ian
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: If your son or daughter was thinking of
: going into architecture in say 10 years time (realistic given the HE
: requirements) would you prefer them to learn some drawing and design
: skills on a computer, or would colouring title pages decorated with
: bubble writing be preferrable? I know which I would want for my kids.
I'd say "learn the drawing and design skills in whatever way is most
effective for you", After all, most architects today trained with pen
and paper and I don't see Foster or Rogers going bust as a result.
Ian
John Arrowsmith
In article <n4BD...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
>I have done a lot of work over the past 5 years with a variety of
>architects working on school buildings. They fall into 3 categories.
>Those who are entirely CAD based, those who are moving to CAD and those
>who will go out of business. If your son or daughter was thinking of
>going into architecture in say 10 years time (realistic given the HE
>requirements) would you prefer them to learn some drawing and design
>skills on a computer, or would colouring title pages decorated with
>bubble writing be preferrable? I know which I would want for my kids.
Ooops....
You previously said something along the lines of "out there in the real
world it's CAD packages all the way" (I've deleted the original posting
by now but it was that sort of stuff) and you mentioned architects as a
part of that real world.
All I said was that having recently visited five different architectural
company offices, it quite patently *wasn't* CAD packages all the way.
Sorry if that observation offended you..... :(
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> That doesn't mean "knowing what it says in BS whatever", it means
> "recognizing that a change in line style would aid communication and
> then deciding which line style would do best".
So why can't I do that in Draw which is a free part of many of the "old"
computers in schools? I have 5 line patterns to choose from and an
infinite number of widths and at least 16 colours.
> You can start children on technical drawing with different media: paper
> and pencil or computer.
Ok let's forget paper and pencil and only use computers then. The way
you go about your designing is changed by the tool and your skill in
its use. If you haven't the skill to draw your design how do you
communicate the idea? How do you revise and modify it? Tools, skills
and process are inseperably linked, its just the traditional
reductionist models that try to say otherwise.
> I think it's possible to teach and learn well without a computer and
> you don't.
It depends on what you are teaching and learning. I am convinced for
example that learning music composition is greatly helped by using a
computer. I am not too sure how well a computer would help learning to
tie your shoe laces. I am convinced computers help composition skills
in English and design skills in a variety of contexts. I find it
difficult to understand why learning is better without a computer when
the learning is increasingly likely to result in an occupation using
computers.
> I have no idea, not having seen the drawings. Since he could have done
> the same thing with pencil and paper, it doesn't matter a dicky bird.
But that's the point, he couldn't have done the same thing with a paper
and pencil. (Just asked him to check. I won't say what he said at
the thought of doing it by hand drawings :-) ) You can't modify
complex paper and pencil drawings in the same way that you can a
computer drawing. He could not have drawn the thing as accurately or
in the same time. he says he wouldn't have had the pencil drawing
skills anyway and he did do GCSE D&C. He would have had difficulties
scaling and using parts of the drawing to illustrate particular design
ideas. He would have had great difficulty producing cutting templates
to the required accuracy.
> What matters is a) whether the designed object met the appropriate
> criteria and b) whether the drawings adequately conveyed the necessary
> information.
Even if it took 4 times as long and the quality was half as good? He
says he couldn't have done either a) or b) to the same quality without
the computer. I don't think so either. Of course if you have no
practice in using graphic design tools the first jobs take time but
imagine how long it would take to do the first hand drawn job if you
had never used a pencil. This is an argument for more practice in
using computers, not less.
> I have used CAD systems myself.
I was beginnning to wonder.
> Oh yes you can - or are you saying that it is impossible to learn
> technical drawing without Autocad?
I made it clear I wasn't, but what you are saying amounts to you can
teach children about the value of books without teaching then to read
first. I'm not talking about speed reading techniques or extremely
challenging books (cf AutoCad) I'm talking basic skills, Dick and
Dora, if you like.
> There are skills in doing circuit diagrams which are directly
> transferrable to doing assembly diagrams
But you opened up this discussion by drawing a distinction between
technical drawing and other graphic designs. Which horse are you
backing?
> Perhaps because most people don't do much typing, and it is easily
> learnt, when required, at any age?
Typing is not that easily learnt although it is easier than handwriting.
And a lot of people need to type but can't - lots of teachers for a start.
If these skills are so easy how come so many teachers haven't got them
and the new ITT proposals by the TTA from September?
> Unfortunately the new ones we think they need are still only our
> opinion. We'll have to wait for a generation of teachers brought up in
> the IT age before we get really sensible policy in this.
So you imply its teacher attitudes which really will decide things? What
chance of a generation of teachers brought up in the IT age if we don't
actually use IT in schools? If you wait that long schools and teachers
will probably be an irrelevance.
>> For my kids I know what I choose and if its good enough for my kids it
>> probably is for other peoples'.
> As pro-capital punishment creationist parents probably say too...
Well, its better than being a hypocrite and expecting other people to
put up with things for their kids I wouldn't do for my own.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> I'd say "learn the drawing and design skills in whatever way is most
> effective for you", After all, most architects today trained with pen
> and paper and I don't see Foster or Rogers going bust as a result.
That's because they employ people who can do CAD. That really is the
worst careers advice I have ever heard :-) You really don't
understand the commercial realities of computer aided design do you?
Speed and accuracy gain competitive advantage. One architect comes
round with a laptop showing a 3-D colour version of the building I can
view from any angle. What happens if we change that wall by taking it
out altogether? No problem sir it will save X and this is what it
looks like. The other brings a load of roll up sheets with 1:200
drawings and a rubber.
I have seen several architects lose very lucrative contracts because
they didn't have CAD facilities. You really are a luddite, Ian. If
I am going to employ a new person in my company I will be looking for
IT skills because it says something about that person's attitude to change
and as an aside it will save me in training costs and time. That's the
bottom line from an employer's perspective. The old partners in an
Architect's firm might not have the skills themselves but you can be sure
they will be employing people with CAD skills. That's definitely what they
tell me.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
John Arrowsmith <jo...@arrowsmith.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Sorry if that observation offended you..... :(
Didn't offend me at all, why did you think it did? While there will
inevitably be some architects who have not taken to CAD, perhaps it is
50% who knows, it seems unlikely that by the time current pupils leave
school there will be many who don't. Architects have had a hard time
during the recession with lack of building and it seemed to me that the
ones I dealt with were all going over to CAD systems - some reluctantly
because of investment costs and training needs - but the reason was that
if they didn't they would not be in business long.
Schools have to think about trends and what the situation might be in
say 5 or 10 years. That's why I believe that pupils need some experience
of drawing on computers. That's all. No offence taken by me I hope I
didn't offend you :-)
--
Ian
Ian G Batten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <na.d45f78484b....@argonet.co.uk>,
Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> When I look at *some* portfolios of evidence the
> only graphics seems to be a few graphs drawn
> automatically by spreadsheets. It won't do.
Buy `The Visual Display of Quantitive Information', Edward R Tufte,
published by Graphics Press, ISBN 096139210X. Amazon have it for 28
dollars.
ian
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNWpqT8oy0yij3IvtAQGWuAL7BnurD7/rQmstz1SShyIair52rzQi5aQp
V9ev6O+fjqt1X9+vDz96JPYp7bq9V/3SKHkg/URxxqutTkRuJ4Acc3mlV3Avh95m
zpHMT/rIjWgNVLJGLEtcmqwyOdC1UWkO
=CKTP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roger Watts
In article <ant23101...@mpaling.voyager.co.nz>, Mike Paling
<mpa...@voyager.co.nz> writes
>In article <n4AA...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
><URL:mailto:i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mike Paling <mpa...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> > I have just been told that Technology is no longer a compulsary part of
>> > the curriclum at *some* levels in the UK.
>>
>> Perhaps this is a reference to relaxing the national curriculum in
>> primary schools?
>>
>> By technology do you mean information technology and design and
>> technology or one or the other?
>>
>
>I was under the impression that "Technolgy", as specified by the National
>Curriclum, covered all aspects including IT, Design Technology, Electronics,
>"Technolgy" is all-encompassing.
>
>Perhaps the rumour that I heard concerned primary schools - can anybody
>explain why things have been *relaxed* - and in what way?
highly technical stuff about CAD and the like. To answer your question:-
IT and D&T have been separated in the NC for about 3 years. IT includes
control technology, taking measurements by computer etc. IT can be used
as a tool in any other subject ( including D&T).
Earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced that from September
primary schools would not be required to teach *all* of the prescribed
curriculum (Programmes of Study) in history, geography, art, music, D&T,
and PE.
IT, maths, English, science and RE are still tightly prescribed.
The reason was that primary schools are being *asked* to undertake much
more rigid literacy and numeracy programmes which would increase the
amount of time spent on maths and English - a quest to improve basic
skills which are said to be lacking. Mr Blunkett, in his wisdom, decided
the best solution was to allow this relaxation. A full review of the
curriculum is planned for 2000. In the meantime schools will still have
to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, so I assume they will still
have to teach some D & T. But generally, confusion reigns.
--
Roger Watts
Ian Johnston
: > That doesn't mean "knowing what it says in BS whatever", it means
: > "recognizing that a change in line style would aid communication and
: > then deciding which line style would do best".
: So why can't I do that in Draw which is a free part of many of the "old"
: computers in schools? I have 5 line patterns to choose from and an
: infinite number of widths and at least 16 colours.
I never said you couldn't. Never. Not ever. Not once. Not at all. Not in the
slightest. I said you could do it with paper too, though.
: > You can start children on technical drawing with different media: paper
: > and pencil or computer.
: Ok let's forget paper and pencil and only use computers then.
Why? Until every child has a computer with them all the time this won't
be practical, and I don't see why they should have to wait until they
get Draw open for an hour a week to do some graphical communication!
: > I think it's possible to teach and learn well without a computer and
: > you don't.
: I find it
: difficult to understand why learning is better without a computer when
: the learning is increasingly likely to result in an occupation using
: computers.
This is related to the computer-algebra-yes-or-no debate we have in HE
land (has it got to school land) all the time. I'm undecided about that -
when I'm doing maths professionally I use Maple all the time but still
want my students to know how to do it manually first. And to return to
a previous point: I really don't think that converting to use of computers is
the earthquake you make out.
: > I have no idea, not having seen the drawings. Since he could have done
: > the same thing with pencil and paper, it doesn't matter a dicky bird.
: But that's the point, he couldn't have done the same thing with a paper
: and pencil.
Fair enough. He used a design tool well (I assume) to produce a good design
well (I assume). What the tool was is irrelevant.
: > I have used CAD systems myself.
: I was beginnning to wonder.
Oooooooh. Miaow!
: > Oh yes you can - or are you saying that it is impossible to learn
: > technical drawing without Autocad?
: I made it clear I wasn't, but what you are saying amounts to you can
: teach children about the value of books without teaching then to read
: first.
No, I'm saying that you can teach them to read books despite the fact they'll
probably be reading from a screen in work.
: > There are skills in doing circuit diagrams which are directly
: > transferrable to doing assembly diagrams
: But you opened up this discussion by drawing a distinction between
: technical drawing and other graphic designs. Which horse are you
: backing?
The same one. Circuit designs are technical drawings, remember? There are
practically no skills in doing still-lifes which are needed to do either
an assembly drawing or a circuit diagram. And this all started by you saying
there wasn't enough graphic design in "Design and Technology" and me saying
so what...
: Typing is not that easily learnt although it is easier than handwriting.
: And a lot of people need to type but can't - lots of teachers for a start.
: If these skills are so easy how come so many teachers haven't got them
: and the new ITT proposals by the TTA from September?
My granny can't type, but that's because she has never had a reason to
learn. Perhaps if The System spent more time and resources giving teachers
a reason to learn the skills and rather fewer on telling them they have
to because it's Modern and, for all I know, Cool they might be a keener.
Anyway, kids in Y3 today probably won't touch a keyboard in their working
unless they go to a Museum of Outdated IT Equipment...
Ian
Ian Johnston
: > I'd say "learn the drawing and design skills in whatever way is most
: > effective for you", After all, most architects today trained with pen
: > and paper and I don't see Foster or Rogers going bust as a result.
: That's because they employ people who can do CAD. That really is the
: worst careers advice I have ever heard :-) You really don't
: understand the commercial realities of computer aided design do you?
Perhaps you are really trying hard to misunderstand my point. Would you,
when choosing between candidates, choose the one who produced impractical,
badly thought out designs on a spiffy cad machine, or the one who
produced more basic drawings showing a greater grasp of what was required?
: Speed and accuracy gain competitive advantage.
Sma epoint again. Crap architects will never be any good no matter how
3D animated their presentations are.
: I have seen several architects lose very lucrative contracts because
: they didn't have CAD facilities. You really are a luddite, Ian.
For crying out loud, you are doing this deliberately aren't you? Or are you
really so bound up in a computers-are-god mentality that you cannot
conceive of any skill existing away from a square of Silicon. I am not a
Luddite. I use computers every single day to write learning materials.
I encourage all my students to obtain symbolic algebra packages to use
as part of their work. I use CAD systems to design FE meshes for stress
analysis. I develop numerical models of complicated physics experiments.
But I still believe that there are some skills which don't need to be
taught with a PC and that there are some skills better taught without.
: If
: I am going to employ a new person in my company I will be looking for
: IT skills because it says something about that person's attitude to change
: and as an aside it will save me in training costs and time.
Well done. So you'll employ an incompetent who can type. Good luck. I have
to appoint university level tutors on courses with some very fancy software.
I always check that they're happy to learn it, but I'd much rather train
a brilliant teacher in using CMC than try to get a thick Nethead to teach
well!
: That's the
: bottom line from an employer's perspective. The old partners in an
: Architect's firm might not have the skills themselves but you can be sure
: they will be employing people with CAD skills. That's definitely what they
: tell me.
Indeed. So they don't bother with architecture degrees, do they, since even
a complicated CAD package can be learned in a few weeks.
Ian
PS Did you see my gripe about IMechEE not accepting CAD as part of accredited
degrees? Oh yes, you did, because you responded to the point. So this
squares with my being a Luddite how, exactly?
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> Perhaps you are really trying hard to misunderstand my point. Would you,
> when choosing between candidates, choose the one who produced
> impractical, badly thought out designs on a spiffy cad machine, or the
> one who produced more basic drawings showing a greater grasp of what
> was required?
Why does it have to be one or the other? I think this is rathe
contrived. I would choose the one who produced well-thought out designs
on a spiffy CAD machine which I think is more likely to be the reality.
> Crap architects will never be any good no matter how 3D animated their
> presentations are.
Why assume CAD = Crap?
> For crying out loud, you are doing this deliberately aren't you? Or are
> you really so bound up in a computers-are-god mentality that you cannot
> conceive of any skill existing away from a square of Silicon.
Not what I have said at all. I am saying that at the moment the balance
is wrong. There is a place for hand sketches. You said that it didn't
matter if there was no use of CAD at all. I'm saying there is a place
for both but in schools I would like to see more CAD - not exclusive CAD
but at least some since it is almost non-existent.
> But I still believe that there are some skills which don't need to be
> taught with a PC and that there are some skills better taught without.
So do I so we have agreement :-)
So you think using computers for some DT drawings in secondary schools
is a good idea? They will do sketches by hand too though and learn to
use a ruler to measure accurately in maths, DT and science.
>> If I am going to employ a new person in my company I will be looking
>> for IT skills because it says something about that person's attitude to
>> change and as an aside it will save me in training costs and time.
> Well done. So you'll employ an incompetent who can type. Good luck. I
> have to appoint university level tutors on courses with some very fancy
> software. I always check that they're happy to learn it, but I'd much
> rather train a brilliant teacher in using CMC than try to get a thick
> Nethead to teach well!
I don't see why you always seem to assume computer skills = nethead,
nurd or some other useful stereotype. I personally believe children can
learn skills in IT without becoming trainspotting anoraks. I would
appoint someone with the skills for the job which includes skills
in ICT. Still perhaps by taking part in this discussion I'm confirming
your prejudice :-)
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> I never said you couldn't. Never. Not ever. Not once. Not at all. Not in
> the slightest. I said you could do it with paper too, though.
Ok so let's use both and then we are both happy :-)
> I really don't think that converting to use of computers is the
> earthquake you make out.
It wasn't an earthquake for me nor perhaps for you but I have seen
enough terrified teachers to realise it really is an earthquake for many
people and it will remain so if these people avoid computers through
school. Who will avoid the computers given the chance? Not the ones for
whom it ain't an earthquake :-)
> No, I'm saying that you can teach them to read books despite the fact
> they'll probably be reading from a screen in work.
Not the point I was making. Reading is a technical skill which people
need to do higher order things. Same is true of using computers. We
don't say teaching the technical skill of reading is neither hear nor
there as long as kids get the information from somewhere eg sitting
watching videos. We believe reading is such a useful technical skill we
make it compulsory from an early age. While I am not claiming using
computers is as important as learning to read I am saying it is
important enough as an under-pinning skill for higher order activity to
warrant more discerning application than it gets at the moment.
> Perhaps if The System spent more time and resources giving teachers a
> reason to learn the skills and rather fewer on telling them they have to
> because it's Modern and, for all I know, Cool they might be a keener.
How about staying employed? I know several schools with ICT literacy as
part of their recruitment criteria. I think many teachers want to be
more IT capable than they are but they find it a daunting prospect to
get over all these "simple" skills. They spend hours being frustrated by
complicated systems they don't understand. If that is graduate teachers,
god help the rest of the population.
> Anyway, kids in Y3 today probably won't touch a keyboard in their
> working unless they go to a Museum of Outdated IT Equipment...
No more so than they won't touch a pen so why bother teaching
handwriting?
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
: > I never said you couldn't. Never. Not ever. Not once. Not at all. Not in
: > the slightest. I said you could do it with paper too, though.
: Ok so let's use both and then we are both happy :-)
Agreed!
: > Perhaps if The System spent more time and resources giving teachers a
: > reason to learn the skills and rather fewer on telling them they have to
: > because it's Modern and, for all I know, Cool they might be a keener.
: How about staying employed?
Maybe I'm an impractically soppy educational manager, but I feel much more
at home with a carrot than a stick.
: They spend hours being frustrated by
: complicated systems they don't understand. If that is graduate teachers,
: god help the rest of the population.
Maybe we need better graduates in teaching? (see other threads ad nauseam)
: > Anyway, kids in Y3 today probably won't touch a keyboard in their
: > working unless they go to a Museum of Outdated IT Equipment...
: No more so than they won't touch a pen so why bother teaching
: handwriting?
The bottom end of technology will, as ever, remain constant. Pens and coins
will be around when keyboards and mondex are distant memories. I doubt if
keyboards will be used much for computer input ten or maybe twenty years
from now.
Ian "Luddite" J
Ian Lynch
Mike Paling <mpa...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
> Isn't he saying that a *useless* architect cannot be disguised simply by
> showing off his skills as a computer graphic artist. Crap = Crap however
> it is presented!
> He is *not* saying that CAD = Crap.
Perhaps not but he seems to be ignoring the possibility that you can
have both. In each case he associated the weakness with the IT skills.
It is possible to be a good architect *and* have CAD skills. It seems to
reinforce the stereotype that those who are technologically competent
are somehow of a lower cast, the skills are of marginal importance and
only fit for artisans. In the middle ages the same thing was probably
said about handwriting - the top people had scribes. A useless technical
author can't be disguised by neat handwriting but equally I personally
wouldn't employ a technical author who couldn't use a word processor. In
this day and age you don't have to choose one or the other you can have
both - particularly if we teach the skills in school which brings us
back to the fact that we should be teaching basic ICT skills in school
and I would say basic drawing on a computer is one of those basic
skills.
From working in OFSTED teams and providing technical support to othe
professional teams I can tell you that computer illiteracy is a
significant problem for many people. It makes the teams inefficient and
causes stress and hassle. It just isn't true to say that most people can
simply pick up a computer and do even simple word processing without any
problems.
--
Ian
Ian Johnston
: > Perhaps you are really trying hard to misunderstand my point. Would you,
: > when choosing between candidates, choose the one who produced
: > impractical, badly thought out designs on a spiffy cad machine, or the
: > one who produced more basic drawings showing a greater grasp of what
: > was required?
: Why does it have to be one or the other? I think this is rathe
: contrived. I would choose the one who produced well-thought out designs
: on a spiffy CAD machine which I think is more likely to be the reality.
Absolutely.
: > Crap architects will never be any good no matter how 3D animated their
: > presentations are.
: Why assume CAD = Crap?
Didn't. Crap architects will produce crap on paper as well. But we were
talking about recruiting new members to a practice, and as in any career -
as opposed to job - potential and underlying ability are probably more
important (or as important) than technical skill with a particular system.
To give an example: last time I had to interview for a secretary we were
much more concerened to find someone who was bright and flexible than
someone who was 100% up to speed on our office software. We chose well,
by the way.
: > For crying out loud, you are doing this deliberately aren't you? Or are
: > you really so bound up in a computers-are-god mentality that you cannot
: > conceive of any skill existing away from a square of Silicon.
: Not what I have said at all. I am saying that at the moment the balance
: is wrong. There is a place for hand sketches. You said that it didn't
: matter if there was no use of CAD at all. I'm saying there is a place
: for both but in schools I would like to see more CAD - not exclusive CAD
: but at least some since it is almost non-existent.
I'd certainly agree with "at least some"
: > But I still believe that there are some skills which don't need to be
: > taught with a PC and that there are some skills better taught without.
: So do I so we have agreement :-)
: So you think using computers for some DT drawings in secondary schools
: is a good idea? They will do sketches by hand too though and learn to
: use a ruler to measure accurately in maths, DT and science.
I think doing the drawings well is a good idea. And it's probably a good
idea to have done some of them on a computer - but we shouldn't fall into
the trap of thinking that, just because it's been done on a computer,
the drawings are necessarily better. I have nothing against developing
two skills at the same time!
: > Well done. So you'll employ an incompetent who can type. Good luck. I
: > have to appoint university level tutors on courses with some very fancy
: > software. I always check that they're happy to learn it, but I'd much
: > rather train a brilliant teacher in using CMC than try to get a thick
: > Nethead to teach well!
: I don't see why you always seem to assume computer skills = nethead,
: nurd or some other useful stereotype.
I don't - I was just taking extremes. In reality, of course, selecting
teachers is a tricky job of balancing different skills and potentials.
Ian (not L)
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> Maybe I'm an impractically soppy educational manager, but I feel much
> more at home with a carrot than a stick.
Me too but I am a realist too. Its not my choice that some governors
want IT capability in a recruitment policy, its not even a threat
really, its just the way things evolve.
> Maybe we need better graduates in teaching? (see other threads ad
> nauseam)
But if graduates of any calibre are struggling what does this say about
the rest of the population - the majority. That's who mass education is
for isn't it. Public understanding of science etc.
> I doubt if keyboards will be used much for computer input ten or maybe
> twenty years from now.
Well there will be some people who don't see why they need this voice
recognition stuff and they will be able to type faster than they can
speak intelligibly, and in a public environment they might just not want
to be heard. Of course when computers can read thoughts....but I think
this is further away than 10 or 20 years. Why would you need a pen if
you could do thought transfer?
--
Ian
Mike Paling
In article <n4C6...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<URL:mailto:i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> > Crap architects will never be any good no matter how 3D animated their
> > presentations are.
>
> Why assume CAD = Crap?
>
Am I being a bit thick here or what? Am I mis-reading what Ian Johnson
actually wrote?
Isn't he saying that a *useless* architect cannot be disguised simply by
showing off his skills as a computer graphic artist. Crap = Crap however it is
presented!
He is *not* saying that CAD = Crap.
--
Regards, Mike Paling <Acorn RiscPC user - and proud to be different!>
New Plymouth, New Zealand
Mike Paling
In article <6KPrQAA7...@roger-watts.demon.co.uk>, Roger Watts
[snip]
> highly technical stuff about CAD and the like. To answer your question:-
>
Many thanks for your answer Roger .......
This thread rapidly took a twist that had very little relevence to my
original question! I thought it a *very* simple question as well!
Thanks for giving me a simple answer that I could follow.
Now onto CAD .................................. :-)
Ian G Batten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <n4C6...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Lynch <i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> get over all these "simple" skills. They spend hours being frustrated by
> complicated systems they don't understand. If that is graduate teachers,
> god help the rest of the population.
Of the people who are about my age, Jane, who was recruited as a
receptionist and switchboard operator with the qualifications you would
expect for that role, runs our external-facing WWW document issues
system, and hacks HTML by hand with a text editor to get it into our
house style.
In Software Engineering Azra, who was recruited as a clerical assistant,
used to hack troff and tbl using vi (ask a Unix junkie to explain) to
sort out the documention here. She later switched to LaTeX using vi
(ditto) and now is the resident FrameMaker guru.
My side-kick Neil, former double-glazing salesman, recruited here before
I arrived to load the plates and ink into an Addressograph machine, is
now my network manager and a dab-hand with an ATM switch. He's one of
the gang here that write the perl scripts that hold our site together.
Going back a bit further, of the apprentices who came here at in the
late sixties (Pete, Keith, Eric, Alan and Paul), one's the former head
of software engineering now in charge of programme management for our BT
accounts, one's now the deputy head of firmware, two are something
senior in marketing and one's the PCB design guru. The last-named
you'll also find credited in Hi-Fi News with the design of several
leading-edge products.
All those people left school at sixteen with few qualifications and are
extremely IT-aware, highly valued members of staff. If graduate
teachers can't do the same, I can't say I can work up much sympathy.
ian
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNWz8Scoy0yij3IvtAQFzygL9Gbtyr4rdhGaJOgs1GroXFZGaPN2rKh8R
ZtcfGvu0f8PjorYdd33v8zOkfIPJcMKlVyvC9/cTfNC0ndl3JH/blDolWzpdgn6U
FuW4G0g8RXS4uGTnvvBX+3ORUFhRh4yk
=+fbZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ian Lynch
Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
> All those people left school at sixteen with few qualifications and are
> extremely IT-aware, highly valued members of staff. If graduate
> teachers can't do the same, I can't say I can work up much sympathy.
On this logic there is something peculiar about teachers and IT, which
seems rather strange given that teachers are about the biggest sample
of the graduate population. You work in an IT environment so a more
likely hypothesis for your "left school at 16" techies is that they are
not typical of the population at large or the environment they are in
is not typical and w hy did they come and work in the environment they
are in? Is the culture in that environment orientated towards new
technologies? All this further reinforces rather than detracts from my
point about using ICT in schools. If schools have a technological
culture they will produce people (I'm talking vast majority here not
some anecdotes about mothers and immediate working colleagues) who are
at ease with IT and the better the range of IT applications and the
support for them the more the technological culture will pervade. You
are adding evidence to this so thanks for that.
We all know you have a personal axe to grind about teachers Ian, but you
do have more intelligence than to take every opportunity to villify them
as a group when it is very unlikely given the size of the teacher
population that they are systematically that much different from others
with similar qualifications. The research evidence shows that the
majority of the population are not that confident with computers. Your
little sample shows what is possible if the environment is right.
While schools can't become software engineering workhouses, they can
move more towards a rich technological culture which will foster
confidence in the use of the technologies.
I started all this with a simple observation that there was very
little CAD - actually simple drawing would be a start - in schools.
The vast majority of IT is wordprocessing and the occassional use of a
spreadsheet or CD-ROM. The only significant graphics element is to
pull clip art from a library. I just think we can do better that's
all and I don't see anything in any of the other arguments to change
my mind.
--
Ian
Leon Cych
In article <6kj1pt$4j9$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
<I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
>All those people left school at sixteen with few qualifications and are
>extremely IT-aware, highly valued members of staff. If graduate
>teachers can't do the same, I can't say I can work up much sympathy.
And how would all those people do in front of a class for six months and
still have to learn those skills?
Don't be silly Ian.
Everyone builds up skills on the job but some jobs are more flexible for
this than others.
Look at your job - when I was off a few weeks ago - we had a usenet
correspondence on research skills by email during the day. You must have
posted, during work hours, at least half a dozen mails. That doesn't
meant to say you don't work longer hours (I doubt it) for more sustained
blocks of time (probably the case).
If I were teaching I'd be pushed to write even ONE during the day. You
have no idea do you? Apart from air traffic controllers I can't think of
one other job where you have to be on task, on call and totally focused
for the entire time you are actually doing it - ask a lot of teachers
what a lunchtime is - they wouldn't know - there are no "dead times" or
downtime in this job. We can't all cop off to do something else all the
time we have to be working. It costs money to put someone in front of a
class and if they go away someone else has to teach them. You can't just
leave the electroplating machine or whatever for a couple of hours to
brush up on your perl you have 30+ individuals to care for/ teach
wherever you are and they will remind you of this constantly. And I know
I'm making stupid analogies now but you see what I mean?
A lot of us have to develop computer expertise in the early hours of the
morning before the next day's teaching or "holidays" - forget training
mate!
The issue is time isn't it? And if your answer is why not use the
holidays - I'd agree with you but that doesn't give you on-the-job
training does it? Most graduate teachers are trying to develop effective
time management strategies for all the multi-tasking they are going to
be expected to do on the job (especially in primary schools) to even
contemplate going near a computer. That's why I think laptops are the
way to go for a lot of people so that they can actually get "freed up"
to develop those skills. And that's why I think your little snipy
comments are a bit unfair Ian. It seems to me that you are taking every
opportunity to take your past bad experiences with teachers out on the
present generation - do you have to keep sticking this silly us and them
wedge in the discussion all the time?
--
Leon Cych
http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/allsouls/index.html
(Resources and fun things for busy Key Stage 2 teachers)
Ian G Batten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <n4D3...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Lynch <i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> as a group when it is very unlikely given the size of the teacher
> population that they are systematically that much different from others
> with similar qualifications
There's one simple difference: their occupation. Is teaching supportive
of new technology? Most workplaces now feature heavy computer
involvement --- ignore my experience, and look at my wife, who's a
technophobe English graduate commercial bank manager. She may get
annoyed by the number of switches on the HiFi, but appears perfectly
able to write a document and drive a spreadsheet. This is not unusual
in banking. We may be a technology company, but we have finance,
personel, manufacturing staff and they seem to manage.
Yes, we're supportive of technology here. Most businesses are: they
provide training and equipment, but also expect people to show some
initiative.
The research evidence shows that the
> majority of the population are not that confident with computers. Your
Sure. But we're talking the graduate, employed population. You're not
seriously suggesting that surveys over the whole population can be
extrapolated (intrapolated?) to that specific subset, are you? After
all, it'll be disproportionately literate and affluent for a start-off.
> While schools can't become software engineering workhouses, they can
Workhouses? An odd choice of word. Of course, we're all in trade...
> move more towards a rich technological culture which will foster
> confidence in the use of the technologies.
Right. So why haven't they? PCs have been common currency for 15 years
now.
> I started all this with a simple observation that there was very
> little CAD - actually simple drawing would be a start - in schools.
True. But the issue is not `PC as drawing board' anymore than it's `PC
as Typewriter'. It's `Technology as Good Thing'.
> pull clip art from a library. I just think we can do better that's
> all and I don't see anything in any of the other arguments to change
> my mind.
Very true. The dreadful IT education isn't just schools' fault, by the
way: you should interview some `IT' graduates...
ian
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNW0gscoy0yij3IvtAQF03AL+NaB1Ri80R79qoLS2lbbg9UN6YdM/QhEY
rLnQwIz/PrKjIHvh2TA3w3UHXvkPxfoiiOqLUJJ/EJI+uUV0jD1J7eZIaY7JdJSR
wjlQ83P6hPm5TjKjPrlk0fVESSpHxuA4
=PyOG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
: > All those people left school at sixteen with few qualifications and are
: > extremely IT-aware, highly valued members of staff. If graduate
: > teachers can't do the same, I can't say I can work up much sympathy.
: On this logic there is something peculiar about teachers and IT, which
: seems rather strange given that teachers are about the biggest sample
: of the graduate population. You work in an IT environment so a more
: likely hypothesis for your "left school at 16" techies is that they are
: not typical of the population at large or the environment they are in
: is not typical and w hy did they come and work in the environment they
: are in?
Also we know from Ian (G)'s previous post's that his company is quick to
sack those who don't meet it's need, so before being impressed we'd need
to know how many secretaries / janitors/ MD's / whatever have been sacked
compared to the four or five who've made it big in IT support.
: I started all this with a simple observation that there was very
: little CAD - actually simple drawing would be a start - in schools.
Actually, it started with an observation (I think by you) that there was
little graphic design - perhaps you meant "design using computer graphics"
and I misunderstood?
Ian
Ian Lynch
Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
> There's one simple difference: their occupation.
Quite and that is the very point I made if you read a bit further
without diving straight into more anecdotes.
> Yes, we're supportive of technology here. Most businesses are: they
> provide training and equipment, but also expect people to show some
> initiative.
So you tax payers and the governors of schools should be pressuring the
government for more and better training for teachers and better access
to ICT equipment. You can't blame the teachers as employees for the
fact that YOU the taxpayer as their employer does not provide them
with sufficient training. It happens in some schools like some
businesses but it is not universally the case. See how many lawyers,
doctors, policeman, dentists, etc are very IT literate.
> Sure. But we're talking the graduate, employed population. You're not
> seriously suggesting that surveys over the whole population can be
> extrapolated (intrapolated?) to that specific subset, are you?
The research evidence I am citing is a survey of 6000 teachers mostly
graduates and mostly working in technology colleges. ie those
institutions most likely to have an affinity to technology.
If you really believe teachers are so much inherently different from the
rest of the graduate population you really have got a problem.
Irrational teacher phobia (ITP) a condition first diagnosed in
uk.education.teachers.
> Workhouses? An odd choice of word. Of course, we're all in trade...
First one that came into my head to provide an extreme example. I work
in the private sector too you know - its just I have experience of
both worlds. I can tell you now that what Leon says is absolutely
correct. Classroom teaching is the most pressured and stressful thing
you can do - you should try it and see how you get on instead of
carping from the sidelines.
> Right. So why haven't they? PCs have been common currency for 15 years
> now.
Good grief, Charlie Brown. Do I have to spell out the history of ICT
development policy in schools? If there is blame, it is as much in the
hands of you the voter for not ensuring a government is elected which
provides proper training of the work force of a public service than it
is for the teachers themselves. I love these people who blame everyone
but themselves. Its always someone else's fault always someone else's
problem. One of the reasons why I am withdrawing from OFSTED
inspections is that I am sick of people telling other people what they
should be doing without having some credibility in being able to do it
themselves. Sorry, I don't usually get wrankled in these discussions
but I'm making an exception in your case. Well done.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> Actually, it started with an observation (I think by you) that there was
> little graphic design - perhaps you meant "design using computer
> graphics" and I misunderstood?
I was actually thinking of pupils like me with quite good ideas but poor
motor skills being able to do things they couldn't with a pencil and
paper. Perhaps I am as guilty as anyone from colouring views with my own
personal hang-ups. All I meant was I would like to see the creative
potential of computers broadened beyond wordprocessing and clip art. I
think a lot of the greatest potential is in things like art and music
because IT enables ordinary people to do things that they couldn't do
without it. eg write a score and hear it played on a variety of
instruments. Mozart might have managed this in his head, most people
can't. I agree with you that to justify their use there should be some
clear advantage to the learning which the computer supports beyond what
could simply be achieved by other means. I just think that in getting to
this point some skills might have to be learnt which do not immediately
fall into this category. You have to invest a little to enable later
rewards. Good old fashioned deferred gratification.
BTW, I shouldn't have called you a luddite - I'm sure you aren't :-)
--
Ian
Ian G Batten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <n4D4...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Lynch <i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The research evidence I am citing is a survey of 6000 teachers mostly
> graduates and mostly working in technology colleges. ie those
> institutions most likely to have an affinity to technology.
I find that absolutely stunning. If a majority of people in that
position are frightened (or whatever the word you used was) of computers
then no amount of Usenet rhetoric can conceal the fact that something
pretty bloody serious is going wrong.
> development policy in schools? If there is blame, it is as much in the
> hands of you the voter for not ensuring a government is elected which
I've voted Labour in every election since I could vote (1983). Even the
council elections, with about one exception. I don't quite see how
that makes me responsible for Tory mis-rule. Presumably no teachers
ever voted Tory?
ian
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNW1Y6Moy0yij3IvtAQFLEwL+L+95wPQjhhfgVw4HHWR6+L38s+f/DF+L
eOIhhXiK/hIH14x+uJrS3OuLBnmgZjJkTc3XwaI5z2iDeWU1N6lVGpEZ6egT29fF
uj+lqp7bELKlCYXlolLtlCYldJh3lD4k
=5L2D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ian G Batten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <6kjf0j$67t$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Also we know from Ian (G)'s previous post's that his company is quick to
> sack those who don't meet it's need
I rather suspect I didn't say that, because it's not true. I said that
personally I think we should. Big, big difference.
ian
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNW1Z58oy0yij3IvtAQH82AL/Ux+6B697Nd0w1A3zAJVuTCTAPNGXl92z
eUdrbNFlAN10AAa4iyUrqztbAhGDwT0wryI0isF5NKsyYLrkIjNiAwR0pWJaA9gd
y7otc3OyZ+nXTc7rkvxeDJXVa7K5SZHi
=o6qa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ian Johnston
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: All I meant was I would like to see the creative
: potential of computers broadened beyond wordprocessing and clip art. I
: think a lot of the greatest potential is in things like art and music...
Hear hear!
Ian
Robert Chrismas
> extremely IT-aware, highly valued members of staff. If graduate
> teachers can't do the same, I can't say I can work up much sympathy.
I don't suppose any of your IT-aware highly valued members
of staff would be interested in a challenging career in
education?
We've got some very good unqualified people teaching
music these days, so they'd fit in very well.
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Robert Chrismas
i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk (Ian Lynch) wrote:
> All I meant was I would like to see the creative
> potential of computers broadened beyond wordprocessing and clip art. I
> think a lot of the greatest potential is in things like art and music
> because IT enables ordinary people to do things that they couldn't do
> without it.
I'd like to take a bit stronger line that that about
using computer for design work. (I'd better say that
I don't actually teach "Design" so it's opinion
suppported by only very limited experience).
In design I'd have thought we would like (ideally,
and give as much time as it took) children to learn
to produce freehand sketches, "formal" technical drawing
and designs on computer.
However we also want children to think about design
alternatives, to try out ideas, and in general
to improve their visual imagination (forgive me if
I fail to use the approved words from the NC).
Computers are jolly useful tools for doing this.
It would not trouble me if we discovered in a few
years time that designers were doing all their
design work on the holodeck, and the controls were
nothing like pencil and paper or "traditional"
computer design tools. I'm far less interested in
teaching manual skills (although they are very
satisfying, or training children to use a particular
program).
The advantage of using a computer in schools for
design work is that for lots of jobs it is easier,
quicker and it produces a result which the child
will be more pleased with.
The sadness is that, to go beyond what Ian says,
we have in many cases become *less* ambitious in our
use of IT in schools.
I don't know whether they will publish it (or
whether it already has been published) but I
wrote a short article related to this claim for
Education Online.
Forgive me if I'm only saying what everyone else has
already agreed. Also forgive me if on the contrary
I find I have opened a whole new can of worms.
The staffroom pedant (gaining recognition by the day!)
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Robert Chrismas
Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
> I find that absolutely stunning. If a majority of people in that
> position are frightened (or whatever the word you used was) of computers
> then no amount of Usenet rhetoric can conceal the fact that something
> pretty bloody serious is going wrong.
Ah, yes. But I think you will find that it's not
just the teachers. I don't know about you, but I
seem to provide computer support for four or
five computer owners at my end of the street.
Not one of them could be described as a confident
computer users. Then there are all the people round
here who don't have a computer, don't want one,
and would sell it if I gave them one.
Remember C P Snow and all that. He'd have a field day!
Funnily enough some of the most "confident" users
have mastered one program (Word say) and they use
that happily but go to pieces if they get a message
about defragging the disk or that the printer paper
limits are wrong.
Very few people have broad based computer skills.
I seem to remember you mentioning someone you work
with who hacks HTML - how is he/she on producing
a floor plan for the office, setting up a relational
database, getting a spreadsheet to compare a
reading age with a chronological age to flag up
a diference on more than one year, Producing a
newsletter, running an accounting package, ...?
If you ask me the computer manufacturers kept trying
to give us more features without worring enough about
"user friendly". They thought that just because it
was a desktop and said "Sorry fatal system error"
it was user friendly.
I know it would be nice if we could just put it down
to incompetent teachers (well nice if you are not a
teacher), but I don't think it's that sort of problem.
The staffroom pedant (is there a kite mark I can get?)
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Eirwen Williams
In article <oCIVQEAf...@poetry.demon.co.uk>, Leon Cych
<le...@poetry.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>The issue is time isn't it? And if your answer is why not use the
>holidays - I'd agree with you but that doesn't give you on-the-job
>training does it? Most graduate teachers are trying to develop effective
>time management strategies for all the multi-tasking they are going to
>be expected to do on the job (especially in primary schools) to even
>contemplate going near a computer.
But why is computer use not part of teacher training? Once you get to
grips with using computers you realise how much time it can save you
with everyday tasks. And an hour spent learning how to use an
unfamiliar program can enhance your lessons no end. I get the
impression that teachers are of a particularly luddite persuasion, but I
can't for the life of me think why. Is their reluctance to use
technology in lessons perhaps due to thinking that there may be a pupil
who knows more than they do?
--
Eirwen Williams
Eirwen Williams
>I was actually thinking of pupils like me with quite good ideas but poor
>motor skills being able to do things they couldn't with a pencil and
>paper. Perhaps I am as guilty as anyone from colouring views with my own
>personal hang-ups.
I think using computers can be a good motivator. I have seen what Y7
pupils can produce using pencil, ruler and compass, and compared it with
what they can produce using Logo. Their fine motor skills are not an
issue with computers. The sense of achievement of producing something
so "professional" is much greater than that which they get from a rather
shoddy hand-drawn effort.
I have also experienced the feeling of finishing a drawing (in ink)
representing hours of work, lifting the pen from the last line, and
blot! I would have killed for a CAD program at that point.
--
Eirwen Williams
Eirwen Williams
In article <na.97731a484d....@argonet.co.uk>, Robert Chrismas
<chri...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>Very few people have broad based computer skills.
>I seem to remember you mentioning someone you work
>with who hacks HTML - how is he/she on producing
>a floor plan for the office, setting up a relational
>database, getting a spreadsheet to compare a
>reading age with a chronological age to flag up
>a diference on more than one year, Producing a
>newsletter, running an accounting package, ...?
I thought this thread was all about teachers using (or not using) IT in
their teaching. You don't _need_ broad based skills to use IT in
teaching. You need to get to grips with the program you're teaching
from and not be a technophobe. That's all. In my experience, if you
get into severe problems with a program, there'll be a student who can
help you out. Control-Alt-Delete was my best friend on teaching
practice (as well as his mate "switch the bloody thing off and try
again".)
>I know it would be nice if we could just put it down
>to incompetent teachers (well nice if you are not a
>teacher), but I don't think it's that sort of problem.
No, but I think there are a few too many technophobic teachers out
there.
--
Eirwen Williams
St.Luke's H. School
Perhaps this thread should be re-titled.
The state of technology teaching in the educational backwater called
England (& Wales).
Lets be honest the teachers who read this posting are in the minority
as are the teachers across the land who could be described as computer
literate.
I used my first computer (ZX81) in the early 80's. I went on to study
Computing Science. I now teach Computing Studies in a secondary school
with about 50 staff and when one of them cant work out why the computer
won't print its me they send for. To be honest there are maybe 2 or 3
other teachers who are capable computer users within the school.
Because schools in general do not have an IT support service the
teacher has to be able to use and maintain the computers themselves.
Its a bit like being able to drive and fix the car when it goes wrong.
In fact most regional councils have IT divisions but they very rarely
support the education dept. They are to busy with the other divisions
in the Council.
You can train teachers to make lovely worksheets and use the PC for
pupil tasks, but they still require to know how the computer or OS
works to be able to keep it running.
It will take several generations before there is a wide IT skill base
in education.
Regards
Kenneth McLaughlin
Computing Studies Teacher
--
SCET
Tel: +44 (0) 141 337 5000
Fax: +44 (0) 141 337 5050
e-mail: enqu...@scet.com
Ian Lynch
Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
> I find that absolutely stunning.
If you actually knew what it was like to teach in schools generally you
would be a lot more stunned I'm sure.
> I've voted Labour in every election since I could vote (1983). Even the
> council elections, with about one exception. I don't quite see how that
> makes me responsible for Tory mis-rule. Presumably no teachers ever
> voted Tory?
So it obviously isn't your fault at all. How convenient.
> If a majority of people in that position are frightened (or whatever
> the word you used was) of computers then no amount of Usenet rhetoric
> can conceal the fact that something pretty bloody serious is going wrong.
Lack confidence and competence in basic ICT skills. The thing that is
seriously wrong is that too many people are blaming other people,
usually teachers, which is easy, but the same people have no obvious
strategies to do anything about it. Furthermore if roles were reversed
I'm damn sure most of the moaners would fall down on one aspect of the
job even if it wasn't IT. I like to think I do help make a small
difference in supporting improvement in IT in schools through some of my
work and I have tried to influence some people in high places - without
a lot of success so I take some of the blame too. This is a national
scale issue and its national scale policies which will be the solution
- if indeed there is one. Whereas time is spent in individual support of
ICT and regular practice in places of work such as banks and I dare say
your office too, that is not true of most schools where teachers work
most of the time in classrooms by themselves. Few primary schools have
no technical support at all and in most secondaries, even those with
large networks its minimal compared with what is taken for granted
outside. Try comparing like with like for a change. Despite the obvious
ease in understanding technology the civil servants and politicians do
not seem to have grasped it that easily. Their solution has been largely
in symbolic gestures to put hardware in schools which shows they
fundamentally misunderstand that it is people that make IT work not
boxes on desks. There is a big push coming with teacher training so that
*might* make a difference in a couple of years time.
--
Ian
Sam Saunders
Eirwen Williams wrote:
> But why is computer use not part of teacher training?
It is! (has been for several years in most places)
however - how long would you think it takes to get from nowhere to
classroom confidence? and how long (in minutes) is available to the
standard PGCE student on a 36 week course?
Sam
Ian Lynch
Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought this thread was all about teachers using (or not using) IT in
> their teaching. You don't _need_ broad based skills to use IT in
> teaching. You need to get to grips with the program you're teaching
> from and not be a technophobe.
The thing about broad based skills is that they are the essence of
education rather than narrow focussed ones which are more usually
associated with training. The people I know who are the most at home
with IT and are able to make changes easily are the ones with a
broad-based skills not those who know how to push the buttons in a
certain sequence in specific circumstances. Its a matter of degree and
you have to make a start somewhere so probably most teachers who are not
confident with IT would be best to start with a single application most
suited to their subject and interests. Its up to the IT manager to make
sure that in doing this the pupils achieve a broad experience and this
makes the IT manager's job probably the most difficult of all subjects
since there is no guarantee that different individuals choosing on
interest grounds will provide the required breadth and balance.
Associating teachers with specific applications is probably not ideal
but if it could be achieved it would probably improve things so in that
sense I agree that from a pragmatic point of view getting to grips with
the program being taught from is probably as much as we can expect from
a lot of people and better than not getting to grips with anything.
However, just as most teachers benefit from a broad background in
numeracy and literacy they would on the same grounds benefit from a
broad background in IT.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
stluk...@scet.com (St.Luke's H. School) wrote:
> The state of technology teaching in the educational backwater called
> England (& Wales).
So you are implying everything is completely different North of the
border. Hm, I wonder...
> Lets be honest the teachers who read this posting are in the minority as
> are the teachers across the land who could be described as computer
> literate.
That sounds more like it.
> It will take several generations before there is a wide IT skill base in
> education.
Perhaps in Scotland ;-) I think by the time several generations go
through in England the current educational model of children attending
schools to do subjects will be long gone so it will probably not be an
issue. A generation is 30 years in most usage so I wouldn't bank on the
system as we know it lasting one generation.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think using computers can be a good motivator. I have seen what Y7
> pupils can produce using pencil, ruler and compass, and compared it with
> what they can produce using Logo.
I remember a Y7 pupil I taught science back in the late 80s. He had a
Widespan score of about 75 so not exactly the brightest of buttons but
he was facinated by IT. I got him to grab an image of an aomeba from a
video mounted microscope, improve the contrast of the nucleus and cell
features in !Paint then drop it into !Impression, write a description
and print it on a laser printer as an A5 pamphlet. Wow, he said it just
looks like the text book - in fact his graphic image was better. His
writing was a bit suspect on reading more closely but what a boost to
his motivation. I think he got a job as a technician as soon as he left
school although his paper qualifications were almost non-exsistent. His
exercise books were a scrawly mess but I doubt he has much call for
extended handwriting these days.
--
Ian
Robert Chrismas
Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Is their reluctance to use
> technology in lessons perhaps due to thinking
> that there may be a pupil
> who knows more than they do?
But also wrote
> In my experience, if you
> get into severe problems with a program,
> there'll be a student who can
> help you out.
It may be true that some students know more than
their teachers. I'm not quite sure that it's a
good thing though.
The staffroom pedant.
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Robert Chrismas
> pupil tasks, but they still require to know how the computer or OS
> works to be able to keep it running.
>
> in education.
Or before we get computers which are truely easy to use.
The staffroom pedant
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Eirwen Williams
In article <msg91114.thr-...@scet.com>, "St.Luke's H. School"
<stluk...@scet.com> writes
>Perhaps this thread should be re-titled.
>
>England (& Wales).
Is it different in Scotland, then?
>
>Lets be honest the teachers who read this posting are in the minority
>as are the teachers across the land who could be described as computer
>literate.
Why? Those who trained more than 20 or so years ago perhaps have an
excuse. Those who trained in the last 10 or so years don't.
>Because schools in general do not have an IT support service the
>teacher has to be able to use and maintain the computers themselves.
>Its a bit like being able to drive and fix the car when it goes wrong.
>In fact most regional councils have IT divisions but they very rarely
>support the education dept. They are to busy with the other divisions
>in the Council.
This is an important point. If the situation is to improve, money
should be available to employ competent technicians. It should not be a
teacher's job to maintain the equipment.
>
>You can train teachers to make lovely worksheets and use the PC for
>pupil tasks, but they still require to know how the computer or OS
>works to be able to keep it running.
>
>It will take several generations before there is a wide IT skill base
>in education.
Couldn't this be speeded up by technical support?
--
Eirwen Williams
Eirwen Williams
Sam Saunders <"J.P Saunders"@leeds.ac.uk> writes
>Eirwen Williams wrote:
>
>> But why is computer use not part of teacher training?
>
>It is! (has been for several years in most places)
>
>however - how long would you think it takes to get from nowhere to
>classroom confidence?
That's really what I did on my PGCE. Prior to the course, my computer
experience amounted to writing a single, simple program in Fortran as
part of my degree course about 10 years earlier, and writing a couple of
letters on someone else's Amstrad.
At the start of my PGCE I was almost as terrified of computers as I was
of standing up in front of a class. However, getting to grips with them
was something that was expected of me, so I waded on in there. I made
sure on my teaching practice that I did at least one computer-based
lesson with each class; the easier to manage classes got several. What
surprised me when I talked about this with other students, was that many
who had much more experience with computers than I did, didn't do a
single lesson using IT.
>and how long (in minutes) is available to the
>standard PGCE student on a 36 week course?
Enough, in my experience.
--
Eirwen Williams
Eirwen Williams
In article <n4DC...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
>I think by the time several generations go
>through in England the current educational model of children attending
>schools to do subjects will be long gone so it will probably not be an
>issue. A generation is 30 years in most usage so I wouldn't bank on the
>system as we know it lasting one generation.
Interesting comment. What do you expect to happen to the education
system in the next couple of generations, Ian?
--
Eirwen Williams
Eirwen Williams
In article <na.beda31484d....@argonet.co.uk>, Robert Chrismas
<chri...@argonet.co.uk> writes
> Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Is their reluctance to use
>> technology in lessons perhaps due to thinking
>> that there may be a pupil
>> who knows more than they do?
>
>But also wrote
>
>> In my experience, if you
>> get into severe problems with a program,
>> there'll be a student who can
>> help you out.
>
>It may be true that some students know more than
>their teachers. I'm not quite sure that it's a
>good thing though.
Why not? Whenever I am teaching, I am also learning. I am usually
learning about some aspect of how people learn, rather than about the
subject I'm teaching (although that also happens, especially at the
higher levels). I don't see my role as a teacher as some sort of fount
of all knowledge. What's wrong with learning from my students?
>The staffroom pedant.
I thought someone might think my two statements contradictory, but my
feeling is that perhaps there will be students who know more than their
teachers about computers. Teachers should take this as an opportunity
to learn rather than feeling threatened by it.
--
Eirwen Williams
Ian Lynch
Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> It may be true that some students know more than their teachers. I'm not
> quite sure that it's a good thing though.
Funny how its become fashionable for pupils to know more than their
teachers in IT but not in other subjects (apart perhaps in one or two
very specific aspects). I wonder why? :-)
Actually, I find pupils who know more about certain things in IT than I
do but its very unusual to find one that has the breadth of knowledge
and understanding. There is a difference between me asking a pupil how
to program a Java Applet and how to switch the machine on or how to set
a ruler up in a word processor.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Interesting comment. What do you expect to happen to the education
> system in the next couple of generations, Ian? --
I can't see a content led National Curriculum surviving. Most of the
sacred cows are really nothing to do with essential learning but the
hobbyhorses of micropolitical interest groups. Eventually people will
realise that things like communication skills in language and number and
cognitive development through things like the CASE and CAME programmes
are far more important than the specific content. These things are more
stable and it is around these that a NC should be built. Content does
provide motivation but it needs to fit the interests of the individual
so its not a matter of getting rid of content, more allowing much more
flexibility in what content people hang on the processes. Context is
important too but this needs to change to fit the times so again it
can't easily be prescribed. If these things don't change pupils will
increasingly vote with their feet and all the government threats and
coersive methods will come to nought. Smoking, drinking and drug taking
amongst adolescents shows that if they really lose interest there will
be nothing the adults can do to making them conform.
To enable greater flexibilty, all pupils will have portable network
computers with which they interact by voice. They will work much more
flexibly between home school and other areas of interest. There will
still be group activities for social interaction but there will be more
freedom for older pupils (probably not so much for younger ones given
safety concerns). Paper based tests will become an irrelevance as the
computers will record the pupils' skills and demonstrated knokledge as
they go along in real situations. They will give accounts of how good
they are in interaction with other people and a whole variety of other
skills.
Or of course they might be sitting in rows at desks doing SATs in 30
years time, learning 1066 and with a ban on access to computers because
that would be cheating :-)
--
Ian
Joe McGrath
In article <n4D3...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>On this logic there is something peculiar about teachers and IT, which
>seems rather strange given that teachers are about the biggest sample
>of the graduate population. You work in an IT environment so a more
>likely hypothesis for your "left school at 16" techies is that they are
>not typical of the population at large or the environment they are in
>is not typical and w hy did they come and work in the environment they
>are in? Is the culture in that environment orientated towards new
>technologies?
<snip>
> I just think we can do better that's
>all and I don't see anything in any of the other arguments to change
>my mind.
>
>
>--
>Ian
Why should teachers learn IT skills? Simple - because they will be
useful and help them do their job!
Why don't teachers learn IT skills? Simple - the technology to utilise
these skills in doing their job is not provided.
Most schools do not have the technology infrastructure to make teachers
become IT literate.
Those in charge of the development of schools do not have the knowledge,
the foresight or the creativity to let them plan effective school
development. Teachers will quickly adopt the skills when the BBC's go in
the bin and the school managers stop talking like the Tellytubbies.
--
Joe McGrath
Sam Saunders
Eirwen Williams wrote:
> At the start of my PGCE I was almost as terrified of computers as I was
> of standing up in front of a class.
that doesn't sound like terrified, that sounds like normal human
apprehension. Are some people really so terrified that they are
immobilised, ill, incontinent - or is the "computerphobic" tag just a
lazy way out? Yes, kids are pretty scary - I still used to feel stomach
cramps in the morning after nearly 20 years teaching - but that's good
creative adrenalin - a good life isn't all warm and cozy.
> However, getting to grips with them
> was something that was expected of me, so I waded on in there. I made
> sure on my teaching practice that I did at least one computer-based
> lesson with each class; the easier to manage classes got several. What
> surprised me when I talked about this with other students, was that many
> who had much more experience with computers than I did, didn't do a
> single lesson using IT.
> >and how long (in minutes) is available to the
> >standard PGCE student on a 36 week course?
>
> Enough, in my experience.
I think you have reinforced the vague ideeas I was trying to express
earlier. Computer knowledge skill and understanding *is* on the ITT
curriculum. You asked why it wasn't. Atypical superhumans like you and I
took advantage of the situation when it presented itself and we jolly
well learned all the stuff. (and if you were like me you spent hours of
extra time when everyone else was asleep, on holiday or down the pub -
good for you!) But so many don't, didn't or can't that there must be
some deeper problem here. It can't just be bad attitudes or moral
torpitude (and even if it were, there's sod all we do about it)
I have just re-read the TTA consultation document on "the use of
information and communications technology in subject teaching" - this
will be statutory for the next wave of ITT students and, to be honest,
it looks almost as hopeless an ambition as passing a law to say that all
mototrist should learn to drive properly. Maybe computers (and all they
give acccess too) are really just very very complex, and only a few of
us can even start to understand use them effectively?
Dunno.
Sam
Robert Chrismas
Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Robert wrote
> >It may be true that some students know more than
> >their teachers. I'm not quite sure that it's a
> >good thing though.
>
> Why not? Whenever I am teaching, I am also learning. I am usually
> learning about some aspect of how people learn, rather than about the
> subject I'm teaching (although that also happens, especially at the
> higher levels). I don't see my role as a teacher as some sort of fount
> of all knowledge. What's wrong with learning from my students?
In my job, which involves teaching young people
about computers, I should (in general) know
more about what I am teaching than my students.
In the same way, when I teach maths, I should know
more about maths than my students.
For a teacher who just wants to use computers
to help teach their subject of English, or History
or Geography say, it's fine to learn from your students
about computers, but not to *rely* on one of them being
able to do what you can't.
Computers are complicated beasts and that some problems will
take skills which a teacher is not expected to have.
However I think teachers should be up to about GNVQ
level 3 with *all* the core skills. It's true that
many are not, some in Communcation, more in Number, and
most in IT, but I think a weakness in any of these
areas is a bad thing.
It's not very useful to go around shedding blame
about this situation. All I'm doing at the moment
is argueing that's it's unsatisfactory.
St.Luke's H. School
Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk,Usenet writes:
>>Lets be honest the teachers who read this posting are in the minority
>>as are the teachers across the land who could be described as computer
>>literate.
>Why? Those who trained more than 20 or so years ago perhaps have an
>excuse. Those who trained in the last 10 or so years don't.
First, Very few teachers have the IT ability and fewer still have
access to the internet on a daily basis. Is that enough of a minority
for you.
I think you should give the idea of IT in education a good long hard
think! Think about the real cost in time and money to train the
thousand upon thousands of teachers to the level of knowledge in the
use of IT that is desired.
What happens is government set targets in teacher IT skills and then
leave it to the education system to come up with the best way to meet
these targets. The person that ends up paying for this 'improvement'
in education tends to be the teacher. They are the ones that give up
their personal time and money to meet the targets.
Eirwen Williams
In article <na.b64cf6484e....@argonet.co.uk>, Robert Chrismas
<chri...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>
>For a teacher who just wants to use computers
>to help teach their subject of English, or History
>or Geography say, it's fine to learn from your students
>about computers, but not to *rely* on one of them being
>able to do what you can't.
Why not? If you have problems with a program and you know one of your
students is more able with IT than you are, and will almost certainly be
able to solve the problem, why not ask their advice?
It seems that some children pick up computer skills with remarkable
ease, and they could be in a position to teach their teachers a few
things about them. I think we might be getting to a time when we have
to give up these ideas of teachers being all-knowing and their students
being ignorant receptacles for knowledge, and accept that we can
sometimes learn a thing or two from those younger than ourselves.
>Computers are complicated beasts and that some problems will
>take skills which a teacher is not expected to have.
But a technician should.
>However I think teachers should be up to about GNVQ
>level 3 with *all* the core skills. It's true that
>many are not, some in Communcation, more in Number, and
>most in IT, but I think a weakness in any of these
>areas is a bad thing.
I'm not sure what GNVQ level 3 is, but all teachers are required to have
GCSE/ O level grade C or above in maths and English - perhaps there
should be some IT requirement as well. Probably wouldn't help the so-
called recruitment shortage, though.
--
Eirwen Williams
Eirwen Williams
In article <357002...@leeds.ac.uk>, Sam Saunders
<J.P.Sa...@leeds.ac.uk> writes
>Atypical superhumans like you and I
How can I argue with something like that? :-)
>took advantage of the situation when it presented itself and we jolly
>well learned all the stuff.
>(and if you were like me you spent hours of
>extra time when everyone else was asleep, on holiday or down the pub -
>good for you!)
It didn't seem like that at the time, but when I get really involved in
something, it doesn't seem like work.
>But so many don't, didn't or can't that there must be
>some deeper problem here. It can't just be bad attitudes or moral
>torpitude (and even if it were, there's sod all we do about it)
Perhaps it's an attitude to risk taking. I knew that if I took a class
into the computer room and it all turned into a disaster, the sky
wouldn't fall on my head. Are some people more susceptible to worrying
about possible repercussions?
>I have just re-read the TTA consultation document on "the use of
>information and communications technology in subject teaching" - this
>will be statutory for the next wave of ITT students and, to be honest,
>it looks almost as hopeless an ambition as passing a law to say that all
>mototrist should learn to drive properly.
Without decent hardware, software and technical back-up in the form of
technicians who are immediately available, I don't think the situation
is likely to improve. Alternatively, we could try and turn teachers
into willing risk-takers, but that's probably as difficult a task as my
husband has set himself - trying to turn his Japanese students into
wild, extrovert party animals.
>Maybe computers (and all they
>give acccess too) are really just very very complex, and only a few of
>us can even start to understand use them effectively?
The ubermensch theory. But barring millennium armageddon, those who can
use them will rule over those who can't. Is this just evolution in
action?
--
Eirwen Williams
Ian Lynch
Sam Saunders <J.P.Sa...@leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
> this will be statutory for the next wave of ITT students and, to be
> honest, it looks almost as hopeless an ambition as passing a law to say
> that all mototrist should learn to drive properly
IIRC the person delivering an important announcement on all this was
heard to admit she didn't know one end of a computer from another. The
blind leading the blind methinks. Still I should get plenty of work from
it :-)
--
Ian
Sam Saunders
Eirwen Williams wrote:
> Perhaps it's an attitude to risk taking. I knew that if I took a class
> into the computer room and it all turned into a disaster, the sky
> wouldn't fall on my head. Are some people more susceptible to worrying
> about possible repercussions?
when I was working with an interesting thing called the Virtual Science
Park, I worked on an assumption that confidence and competence were
vital and interrleated dimensions. But confidence was the deeper and
more important. Sound education always starts with self esteem, and
pauses to help support it when it's lacking. Naming the curriculum is
only useful when the confidence to tackle it is present.
> Without decent hardware, software and technical back-up in the form of
> technicians who are immediately available, I don't think the situation
> is likely to improve. Alternatively, we could try and turn teachers
> into willing risk-takers, but that's probably as difficult a task as my
> husband has set himself - trying to turn his Japanese students into
> wild, extrovert party animals.
difficult, but not as difficult as persuading the powers that be that
it's necessary.
> >Maybe computers (and all they
> >give acccess too) are really just very very complex, and only a few of
> >us can even start to understand use them effectively?
>
> The ubermensch theory. But barring millennium armageddon, those who can
> use them will rule over those who can't. Is this just evolution in
> action?
oops, dodgy territory. I never said any of it. evolution is a genetic
thing - takes many generations and lots of premature deaths. cultural
change is safer - takes many generations and has lots of leads and lags.
but pause and wonder how many teachers have confidently and competently
deployed the Banda machine? I only knew one. A geography teacher who
could do multicolour handouts that really worked. Everyone else spilt
the fluid, produced indecipherable gibberish that the kids had to
re-write from dictation (as in: "The third line should say "equal to a
basket of currency ... and please ignore the splodge at the bootonm of
page two") and stilll haven't really got to grips with putting originals
the right way round in a photocopier.
Ian Lynch
Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> It's not very useful to go around shedding blame about this situation.
> All I'm doing at the moment is argueing that's it's unsatisfactory.
And I agree with you entirely. If it was English, all the pedants would
be out talking about the essential nature of the apostrophe and use of
the comma. Its easy to criticise weaknesses from a position of strength
but as soon as its something new that the cultural hiearchy don't
understand, its not as important. The new requirements for ITT are
interesting. Would most of the hierarchcy of the TTA satisfy the
requirements they are putting out? Somehow I think not. A bit like
OFSTED's criticism of school management procedures and development
plans. Anyone ever seen the OFSTED 3 year costed development plan with
targets and performance indicators?
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
stluk...@scet.com (St.Luke's H. School) wrote:
> I think you should give the idea of IT in education a good long hard
> think! Think about the real cost in time and money to train the
> thousand upon thousands of teachers to the level of knowledge in the use
> of IT that is desired.
Can we afford not to? Its not that expensive if you compare the cost to
salaries and other forms of training. All you need is to give every
teacher a moderately powered computer with an internet connection, put
over 2 full training days to get them started on their own machine which
they take home. This would probably cost about 400 million pounds -
perhaps less on economies of scale. Sounds a lot but in the context of
the whole budget its not. If you don't ensure they have a machine to
practice on other forms of training are a waste of time and money as has
been shown over the last 15 to 20 years. You could reduce the bill
considerably by simply giving a contribution to help pay for the
computer or giving tax relief but that wouldn't ensure that everyone
participated.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
Eirwen Williams <Eir...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm not sure what GNVQ level 3 is, but all teachers are required to have
> GCSE/ O level grade C or above in maths and English - perhaps there
> should be some IT requirement as well. Probably wouldn't help the so-
> called recruitment shortage, though.
The TTA say Level 8 from September. Hm, optimistic methinks.
--
Ian
Leon Cych
In article <n4ED...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lynch
<i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
>All you need is to give every
>teacher a moderately powered computer with an internet connection, put
>over 2 full training days to get them started on their own machine which
>they take home. This would probably cost about 400 million pounds -
>perhaps less on economies of scale. Sounds a lot but in the context of
>the whole budget its not. If you don't ensure they have a machine to
>practice on other forms of training are a waste of time and money as has
>been shown over the last 15 to 20 years.
Try telling that to the treasury. They just can't get it into their
little heads that the capital funding has to be linked to the training.
You know what will happen don't you - a lot of authorities will contract
ou tto third parties which will give the training, teachers come back
into the classroom and then forget it all because they don't personally
apply it.
--
Leon Cych
http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/allsouls/index.html
(Resources and fun things for busy Key Stage 2 teachers)
Leon Cych
In article <35712A...@leeds.ac.uk>, Sam Saunders
<J.P.Sa...@leeds.ac.uk> writes
> But confidence was the deeper and
>more important. Sound education always starts with self esteem, and
>pauses to help support it when it's lacking. Naming the curriculum is
>only useful when the confidence to tackle it is present.
That's why in school every ICT co-ordinator should do a confidence
audit!
Robert Chrismas
I hope I'm not misunderstanding your comment here:
GNVQ Level 3 may be TTA Level 8, but the core skills
(Number, IT and Communcation) are not as extensive
(nor, arguably, as difficult) as the main subject
content. The core skills are just the level of Maths,
English, and IT you think a student should have
before they get a GNVQ in "Business Studies" say. Obviously
the Business Studies stuff is the main part of the course.
I didn't actually want to use the GNVQ list of performance
criteria anyway. It would be fun to try to make up a
future proof list of useful IT skills for a teacher.
I do think that teachers should know *as much* about
IT as we think a student getting a GNVQ qualification
in Health and Social Care should have.
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Robert Chrismas
Leon Cych <le...@poetry.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That's why in school every ICT
> co-ordinator should do a confidence
> audit!
Oh gosh. Not more paper work I hope.
How do you do a confidence audit then?
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Ian Lynch
Leon Cych <le...@poetry.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You know what will happen don't you - a lot of authorities will contract
> ou tto third parties which will give the training, teachers come back
> into the classroom and then forget it all because they don't personally
> apply it.
Actually I am thnking of setting up training courses where I give away
a free computer to those who come on one. That might get round the
problem and with hardware prices falling it might become viable next
year.
--
Ian
Ian Lynch
Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> GNVQ Level 3 may be TTA Level 8,
National Curriculum Level 8. Not sure the things are directly
comparable. I'm not sure whether this is the whole of L8 or just bits
relevant to their subject. If its the whole of it we will see English
teachers data-logging and doing control technology :-) I'm trying to get
hold of the discussion document. Thoght it might me on the TTA web site.
If it is I couldn't find it.
--
Ian
Leon Cych
In article <na.40dcf0484e....@argonet.co.uk>, Robert Chrismas
<chri...@argonet.co.uk> writes
> Leon Cych <le...@poetry.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's why in school every ICT
>> co-ordinator should do a confidence
>> audit!
>
>Oh gosh. Not more paper work I hope.
>
>How do you do a confidence audit then?
>
Sam Saunders
The documents I have in front of me tell me that the consultation period
is now over. So the documents are a bit academic - except that they will
no doubt translate indistinguishably into the real thing - advice to
Minister followed by Circular (just) before the September when they are
supposed to be in action (bloody silly timescales - how do they ever
expect to get anything right?). Surprisingly I can find no indication
about how to get hold of extra copies. But a phone number is given for
getting hold of Circular 10/97 about the ITT Curriculum in general.
Maybe that will do the trick - the number is 0845 602 2260
The ITT requirements are boggling. Talk about Mission Impossible.
Sam
Robert Chrismas
i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk (Ian Lynch) wrote:
> Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > GNVQ Level 3 may be TTA Level 8,
>
> National Curriculum Level 8. Not
> sure the things are directly comparable.
> I'm not sure whether this is the whole
> of L8 or just bits relevant to their
> subject. If its the whole of it we will
> see English teachers data-logging and doing
> control technology :-)
Attaching counters to set books to count
the frequency page turning? :-)
> I'm trying to get hold of the discussion document.
If you find it you might let me know where I can
look at it.
Formerly the staffroom pedant (now outclassed)
--
Robert Chrismas chri...@argonet.co.uk
Leon Cych
In article <35719A...@leeds.ac.uk>, Sam Saunders
<J.P.Sa...@leeds.ac.uk> writes
>Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>> Robert Chrismas <chri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > GNVQ Level 3 may be TTA Level 8,
>>
>> National Curriculum Level 8. Not sure the things are directly
>> comparable. I'm not sure whether this is the whole of L8 or just bits
>> relevant to their subject. If its the whole of it we will see English
>> hold of the discussion document. Thoght it might me on the TTA web site.
>> If it is I couldn't find it.
>>
>> --
>> Ian
>
>The documents I have in front of me tell me that the consultation period
>is now over. So the documents are a bit academic - except that they will
>no doubt translate indistinguishably into the real thing - advice to
>Minister followed by Circular (just) before the September when they are
>supposed to be in action (bloody silly timescales - how do they ever
>expect to get anything right?). Surprisingly I can find no indication
>about how to get hold of extra copies. But a phone number is given for
>getting hold of Circular 10/97 about the ITT Curriculum in general.
>Maybe that will do the trick - the number is 0845 602 2260
>
>The ITT requirements are boggling. Talk about Mission Impossible.
>
>Sam
DUM DUM DA DA-DA DUM DUM DA DA-DA etc.
Sam Saunders
Leon Cych wrote:
> DUM DUM DA DA-DA DUM DUM DA DA-DA etc.
> --
> Leon Cych
maybe you could have posted just a tiny little binary for this one?
Sam
Leon Cych
In article <3571BF...@leeds.ac.uk>, Sam Saunders
<J.P.Sa...@leeds.ac.uk> writes
Don't tempt me - I don't want to put everyone into a panic and it's well
bad against the charter innit guy? - So here's a URL where you can hear
the midi instead:
http://alt.dataforce.net/~viking/midi_from.htm