John Clare gives his alternative view of computers in education.
UPDATE:
Listen to podcast of this session below:
Powered by FireStatsJohn Clare gives his alternative view of computers in education.
UPDATE:
Listen to podcast of this session below:
Powered by FireStats
I found this session very depressing. There are a number of issues that disturbed me
1) John said that there had been little debate on the effective use of ICT and it was in this spirit that he was here, yet he singularly did not wish to enter that debate as he allowed comment after comment to pass without rebuff.
2) John was applauding that old boring software that we moved away from 20 years ago as sterile, unengaging and developed rote learning of facts.
3) He was constantly referring to achievement and it became clear that his definition of this was to reproduction of facts.
I think that’s about enough for now. What did you think?
Barry Joyce
I found this a really good session, not at all depressing. I think it is vital that we be challenged about the impact that the huge investment has made. And some of John’s points about technology for technology’s sake may be valid.
The real problem is the method by which we assess impact. Unfortunately there is still a drive to use the end of KS4 results (or KS3 sats) to measure impact. There is of course a massive lead time in measuring impact of a primary initiative if we use this method.
Another problem is that as we move things forward so the goal posts move too, because the expectations of the world outside school moves forward too.
I have taught ICt & computing for many years and there is almost no comparison between what we taught 10 years ago and what we teach now in terms of complexity of understanding and capability required, and yet the overall end results look similar. Could we therefore say there has been no progress or impact?
In many areas of our work within schools that is the real challenge, its a bit like walking up the down escallator. If we don’t help teachers to move forward, continually working outside their comfort zones, their results will go down.
Off the track a little perhaps but what we are measuring and how we are measuring it must be key questions if we want to “prove” that the investments are worthwhile.
[...] Phew, what a week in Torquay at the Naace conference - stimulating sessions and debate! The ‘talk of the conference’ was the keynote address by John Clare, Education correspondent for the Telegraph and a fierce critic of the educational value ICT in schools and the expenditure that has taken place in the UK over the years. While I expected discussion on his session to have died down by coffee time the next morning, I was still hearing comments on the Friday morning after the conference was over! It seems that he had not in fact entered the ‘lions den’, as I heard of no-one rejecting the general points he made out of hand. Indeed Naace members were prepared to listen, and happy to be challenged on their belief that ICT advances education. However, when it came to questions at the end, at no stage did he attempt to engage in ‘the debate’, which he claimed had hardly taken place: “… and we might also agree that education can only benefit from opposing sides testing each others convictions now and then. Where ICT is concerned, it really is only now and then. For never, I believe, has such a major initiative been so little debated. It’s in that spirit that I want to argue this evening that what ICT has to offer education has been grossly exaggerated.” [...]
[...] Gareth Davies: Phew, what a week in Torquay at the Naace conference - stimulating sessions and debate! The ‘talk of the conference’ was the keynote address by John Clare, Education correspondent for the Telegraph and a fierce critic of the educational value of ICT in schools and the expenditure that has taken place in the UK over the last few years. While I expected discussion on his session to have died down by coffee time the next morning, I was still hearing comments on the Friday morning after the conference was over! It seems that he had not in fact entered the ‘lions den’, as I heard of no-one rejecting the general points he made out of hand. Indeed Naace members were prepared to listen, and happy to be challenged on their belief that ICT advances education. However, when it came to questions at the end, at no stage did he attempt to engage in ‘the debate’, which he claimed had hardly taken place … [...]
[...] Following John Clare’s keynote at the recent Naace Conference, in the post this morning came news of just the tool to gladden his heart. The introductory letter with the product sheet, states: “Please take a moment to consider a new product that is the perfect accompaniment to every new Promethean or Smartboard sold into school. With certain interactive whiteboards, the use of dry wipe pens is not recommended, so teachers cannot use them as a conventional whiteboard … the Learning with Linden CLEAR BLIND, … helps solve this dilemma. You may think this is not an issue … but many schools have requested that we come up with this very product and for the same reasons time after time. [...]
Not since Lewis Bronze made his speech about “tap dancing tweenies” in the context of the BBC and curriculum online have I enjoyed such an electric atmosphere at a Naace conference.
John Clare in my opinion was a most crafted speaker.
In demonstrating his craft, in the way he delivered his speech, he made, I feel, a very powerful and relevant point.
I would agree that he may be somewhat old fashioned in his view of education, indeed what education now needs to offer young learners whilst in the care of schools. I think Neil Mclean helped everyone to feel better by putting that into context, attaching added value to ICT, very well the next day.
However, when John Clare was asked a relevant question, John Clare gave relevant answers. I do not think he avoided debate. I was surprised at the level of instant empathy from the audience who spoke up and agreed with many of the arguments presented following his speech.
Why was this?
Perhaps, there does need to be a nudge, a sense check to the application of technologies that may well be “junk food”, where they reduce authenticity, where they are really invented for screens, big or small rather than for sound pedagogy, educational value or to develop emotional intelligence.
Where technology adds the real, research, reach out, value and where it doesn’t, would also seem very clear from the presentation by Neil Mclean.
What worries me is that I agree with the concerns John Clare mentioned, that innapropriate uses will “dumb down our childrens education”. It could avoid the need to develop competencies, crafts, such as those beautifully displayed by John Clare. I believe these are still essential to empower young people to fulfill their potential in life.
I think the “junk food” for learning has been invented for privacy within a screen based comfort zone and not for sound educational purpose. It makes a nonsense of how we use our range of senses, the input output devices, given to us at birth. At the same time we are setting up the teachers, the people - people bit, to feel increasingly inadequate if thay cannot use, tablet pcs, interactive whiteboards, games, graphics and compete by hopping around like a tap dancing tweeny.
So does education want screens to, offer less and less authenticity, not much use for anything but our eyes, a reducing need to communicate on a personal level, undermine the value and role of a teacher.
Do screens help or hinder the development of confidence, competencies and crafts required for life and secure Gordon Browns investment in the economy of the future?
Andy Preston