ICT in schools is having an identity crisis

It is often the case that ICT Departments are put in charge of both the maintenance of the infrastructure and the delivery of ICT as a curriculum subject - which is a bit like asking the bursar to teach Economics
Safari

Posted by José Picardo on June 26, 2012

There has been quite a lot of discussion regarding the role of Information and Communication Technologies in schools. Much of it revolves around whether ICT is a set of skills or a subject (pssst, by the way, the answer is it’s both!). But this dichotomy misses a third, more important point: the massively important role of ICT as a medium in which to culture the transformation of teaching and learning.

In my view, the problem stems from the outmoded model upon which many schools base their ICT provision. And the very word provision says a lot about schools’ perceptions of ICT: the use of Information and Communication Technologies is something that needs to be provided, supplied and procured, rather than something that needs to be taught, encouraged and nurtured.

To be fair, many schools already realise that ICT constitutes more than providing computers and a network. However, this recognition often results in a split personality – ICT’s first, worrying symptoms of identity crisis: it is often the case that ICT Departments are put in charge of both the maintenance of the infrastructure and the delivery of ICT as a curriculum subject – which is a bit like asking the bursar to teach Economics.

Instead, in order to help ICT through this identity crisis, schools need to distinguish (some already are) between ICT as network support services, that is to say the support staff who look after the ICT infrastructure; ICT as curriculum subject, i.e. the teaching of computing, digital studies, digital literacy, digital competencies… call it what you will; and ICT as the core of a transformed and transforming teaching and learning environment, to be placed at Director of Studies or Assistant/Deputy Head level.

It’s a very peculiar situation, if you think about it. Many of us aspire for ICT to become as permeating, dependable and unquestioning as electricity – something on which to rely without really having to think about it (except, perhaps, when there is a power cut). As this reality draws ever closer, perhaps we’ll begin to realise that we need an ICT Department guiding our use of technologies as much as we need a Department for Electricity in charge of the school’s electrical policies.

What do you think?

Many thanks to Greenog for the photograph.

 

Related articles:

  1. Schools can only ever embrace yesterday’s technology The pace at which technology is moving forward is technology's worst enemy when it comes to its adoption in schools...
  2. The internet isn’t going anywhere The internet has reached such ubiquity that, much like electricity, we take it for granted...
  3. Why Schools Must Teach Social Networking The time has passed when students entering secondary education do not remember life before social networking...
  4. A new Naace? I like Naace. Its heart is in the right place. I hope they make the most of this golden opportunity to rethink its role and transform itself into what Becta was not allowed to become...
  5. The Elephant in the Room It makes no sense to me to snub the potential of new technologies to boost the quality of our pupils' education by allowing them to become an integral part of the teaching as well as the learning process...
  • http://twitter.com/MrAColley Andy Colley

    Part of the discussion at #rethinkingict was around nomenclature and whether ICT as a subject needs to be rebranded. For me, the content of ICT as a subject is more important than the name, but I think that schools do need to differentiate between the study of ICT and its use to enhance and extend learning.

    In much the same way as English and literacy or Maths and numeracy, I think that it is important to separate ICT the subject from ‘learning technologies’ (or whatever we want to call it).

    • http://www.josepicardo.com José Picardo

      It was partly following the #rethinkingict twitter stream that prompted me to write this post. I think you’re abosolutely right and we need to rethink how information and communication technologies are taught as a subject in its own right, but also as the catalyst for the transformation of teaching and learning from a model that has changed little in over a hundred years to a model that is more relevant to how we -students and teachers- live our lives today and that better prepares our students for life in the future. Many thanks for your comment Andy.

      • http://twitter.com/IaninSheffield Ian Guest

        I too have thought for some while that ICTs can act as “as the catalyst for the transformation of teaching and learning,” but am increasingly worried that that’s expecting too much. It also means that some people might side-step any consideration that teaching and learning might need to change, by using some of the ‘issues’ that inevitably accompany new technologies as a crutch.
        If we think teaching and learning need to change, then maybe aim to get to the heart of that. If ICTs can help there, great, but is it too ambitious expecting it to drive the agenda?

        • http://www.josepicardo.com José Picardo

          I don’t think technology should drive the teaching and learning agenda, but I think schools need to place technology at the heart of our strategic planning and better understand its transformational potential. That is not a contradiction in my view – that is only to say that we would be unwise to ignore the new teaching and learning possibilities new technologies afford us.

          Thanks very much for your comment Ian.

  • http://twitter.com/dpothin Deivis Pothin

    With ICT being disapplied from September 2012, I worry that many primary schools will just put it in backburner until the new curriculum comes out leaving teachers deskilled. Teachers and school leaders must make sure technology continues to be used to support and enhance learning.

  • http://twitter.com/fifi16 fiona watson

    we teach its more sophisticated use in art, technical drawing, graphics etc. However, throughout school we observe it’s use by teachers and those around us. We pay little heed to the technology of producing pencils and surprisingly little to the differences between them. But we do know how to sharpen them, replace them and when a penis better than a pencil. It is the use of ICT that is powerful not what makes the hardware work or even the code behind software – although they are both valuable disciplines in their own right.

  • Penny

    Your comment that
    “…it is often the case that ICT Departments are put in charge of both
    the maintenance of the infrastructure and the delivery of ICT as a
    curriculum subject – which is a bit like asking the bursar to teach
    Economics”
    got me at first nodding my head, but then thinking some more…
    Yes, ICT Departments are often given the dual role of network and device administration as well as curriculum delivery, and this is unreasonable. But I think it’s more to do with an unreasonable expectation of time commitments than of skills. It’s not really like asking the bursar to teach economics because the bursar does not have a degree in teaching/education. The ICT teachers, however, often -do- have a degree in IT. If the bursar was to go and train in education, then it would be fair, perhaps, to ask them to teach. It would not be fair to ask them to teach on top of their regular duties.

    Also, I’d rather have someone with an educational background in charge of my school’s ICT infrastructure than someone without. :)

    • http://www.josepicardo.com José Picardo

      The model I propose has someone with an educational background in overall charge of ICT (Curriculum and Network) at school leadership level – perhaps a Deputy or Assistant Head (or Principal).

      In defence of Bursars, they tend to hold Higher Ed qualifications in Business and Finance, Public Administration or Accountancy. I still wouldn’t expect one to teach lessons any more than I would expect the Economics teacher to be a bursar! :-)

      Thank you for your contribution Penny.

  • http://twitter.com/DrTomCrick Dr Tom Crick

    I think the title of this post hits the nail on the head — ICT in schools is facing an identify crisis precisely because it has no clear identity. As identified in the Royal Society’s report Shut down or restart? published in January, the term ICT as a brand should be reviewed and disaggregated into better defined areas such as Computer Science, Information Technology and Digital Literacy (as well as Technology-Enhanced Learning). Conflation of these areas is at the heart of the problem we are facing with ICT.

    For example, I have seen the phrase ICT used to represent five discrete things at school:

    1. The National Curriculum subject called ICT (which is currently a varying combination of Digital Literacy, Information Technology and Computer Science);

    2. The use of generic information technologies to support teaching and learning e.g. interactive whiteboards, VLEs, class response systems, websites to distribute and submit homework, etc;

    3. The use of specific computer technologies to support particular aspects of a subject (for example, weather stations in geography, MIDI instruments in music, etc.);

    4. The use of technologies to support teachers’ administrative processes, and the school’s management information systems, including registration, record keeping, finance, reporting, communicating, etc;

    5. The physical infrastructure of a school’s computer systems: the networks, printers and so on.

    Clearly this is a significant problem! While it is easy to get bogged down in terminology issues, I think it is clear that something needs to change to better reflect the role and importance of computing and technology in a modern and challenging education system (and also to change the wider perception of the cognate area).

  • http://twitter.com/damiangb Damian GlasfurdBrown

    Nice, challenging article. You are spot on about the need to distinguish provisioning from teaching, learning, and ethos. We do it by calling the support function IT and the academic function ICT, which chimes with the general use of “IT” in the industry and “ICT” in the education sector. There are still lots of unanswered questions about the tension between the need to control any “provided” environment and the need to foster openness and a will to experiment among teachers and learners (though it seems to me, kids have that naturally unless/until it gets knocked out of them). The pendulum swings back and forth. So, professional IT administrators are better at managing technology than teachers, and professional ICT teachers are better at teaching than sysadmins. This can leave a gap surrounding the whole area of encouraging an appreciation of technology amongst the non-ICT teaching staff at a school. That is where I would agree there is a need for a real champion at DoS, Deputy, or Head level. But let them champion and foster an ethos of understanding and exploiting technology, and make sure the support team are empowered to follow through.

    I will pick you up on “Many of us aspire for ICT to become as permeating, dependable and
    unquestioning as electricity – something on which to rely without really
    having to think about it (except, perhaps, when there is a power cut)”. I agree it’s a laudable aim, and there might come a time when we have solved the crisis of demand for IT services outstripping the ability of the technology suppliers to reduce power consumption. But in the meantime, we should not only be questioning whether it is a good thing to rely unthinkingly on the presence of our favourite technology feeds, but also our assumptions about the ongoing availability and cost of power.