Computers and Literacy: Evidence Ignored

Christopher Turner Senior Lecturer, The Manchester Metropolitan University

Introduction Educational research and national educational projects have had a lean time of late. There have been very few occasions in recent years when education policies have had credibility bestowed on them by reference to relevant research or reports highlighting ‘best practice’.

Because the evidence of research has been wil,fully ignored, i t has been a very frustrating time for all those who base their educational practice on evidence which has been gathered and analysed.

This article is a reaffirmation of the value and importance of research, and uses the area of IT in Englishfliteracy as an example. I t is also a rationale for maintaining the research impetus. In the context ofcontinuing confrontation over education policy, a sense of our professionalism is vital, and part of that professionalism is about principled actions and decisions based on evidence and reflection.

In brief, what has happened in the area of IT and English is, in microcosm, the story of some aspects of recent developments in education in the UK generally.

The National Curriculum: the first version You can imagine the delight in some quarters when the first version of the National Curriculum for English appeared in 1989 and there were references to theuseofITinEnglish. Infact,therehadneverbeenanof€icial government document about the teaching of English which contained so many clear references to the contributions that microcomputers can make.

In other words, it was no longer possibly to ignore IT in English, because pupils between the ages of 5 t o 16 had an entitlement to access to microcomputers in their English lessons. The English non-statutory guidance offered additional help to English teachers through examples of activities as well as more general statements of aims and objectives.

There has been, as a result, a significant increase in the use made of IT in English. Indeed, it is clear that we have now reached a point in the development of IT in English where teachers have very largely accepted the importance and distinctiveness of its contribution, and are habitually incorporating IT into their schemes of work. (1)

The current context You might be forgiven for thinking that this is about to turn into a celebration of what has been achieved, with lots of fascinating anecdotes about lessons seen and enthusiasms expressed. Plenty has already been written to show the lively innovations which have taken place.

28 English in Education

However, the draft proposals for the second version of the National Curriculum for English were published in April 1993. At some time in the future, there is likely to be a new National Curriculum for English - and it may have no references at all to IT in English. To try to understand that omission, what follows is a brief survey of some recent research and reports.

1. Evidence from HMI Her Majesty’s Inspectors of education (HMI) produced a report in late 1992 entitled Information Technology in Secondary Schools. It is a report of a very extensive survey:

Orier 1300 /essons were seen ui?i.ere Informution T d n o l o g y IIJLIS used in more thun 500 different secondury schools.

If you read the report looking for comments on IT and English, in the ‘Main findings’ section you will find the following:

(u.) Wiwn IT is iiitrorlirrrd into unother sril?ject, the tcuching of thut subject is often ini.proiied;

( b ) The greut ni.uiorit.y of [IT] lessons concentrde on word procvssing and gruphics;

(c) . . . in. only u few schools is [thaproitision ofec~iii~~ni.e~i. t]udrr~uufe to enublepupils to remh. u. bill runge of Nu.tio1i.u.l Cirrricriliim targets;

i . ~ tusk of sripporting [teucharsy iiiilliiigness [to grusp opporttcnities offered by IT] ining rernuins forniiduble.

In other words, the successes of IT across the curriculum have been achieved despite poor training and often inadequate resources, so the reasons for the successes must be rooted in the efficacy of the classroom activities.

When the report examines the current situation in more detail, it makes the following observations and conclusions about IT and English:

(11.) . . . u iiiord processor fosters more effective uiriting . . . (bj Th.e best teuching wi th IT rnuk riihich. piipils and teuchars upprou 011. u neiiispuper urticle is a ni.ore content in front of u screen.

o f the opportimities offered to change the UJUYS in ks uncl solrieprob1eni.s . . . WorkiiigcolluborutiiJely tic tusk I I J ~ P I I . u groiip can discuss and recost the

In the section reporting on ‘Communicating ideas and information’ there is the following:

(u) Pupils shorii u uJilbingness to ernburk upon pieces of writing knoiiJing that thtir first efforts cun be nrodified and thut the f i n d resirlt will be incpressiriely presented.

(b) Wli.en word processing is used in English, more upproprinte tusks ure set und theqriulity of iiiriting is better t l i m iiihere i t is taught i n isolotion.

(c) . . . the drrtelopni ent of sirch. techniqiies [in roord processing siich us mmiizg udwle sections of text from one part of the work to another] is best done uihen the need for sitch reclrufiing hus uriseu in the coiirsc of nornrel writing.

(d) Purticiilar sim-ess is often uchieiied iiiith. pupils irhose presentation u i d ucciirucy 11.m [sic] caiised theni to lose confirlence in their a1)ilit.y to iintlertuke sustuinedpieccs of iiiriting.

(e) Sonietirnes, uJ0rkiii.g together urolind u screen. on a piece of writing allows pupils to discirss both content aid syntax, c r i d druriJ ripon t h t conv!~ined knouiledge of the group.

It is very reassuring to read that what many teachers have known for some time about the beneficial effects of IT in English now has the seal of approval of HMI. It is also very encouraging that the inspectors confirmed the value and importance of some widely held principles in the teaching of English.

Computers and Literacy: Evidence Ignored 29

2. A recent publication There is a particularly striking contribution to a recent collection of essays. In Computers and Language (Monteith, 1993), Chris Breese, the Head of English in a secondary school in Stevenage, describes aproject in which every child in one class was given a laptop computer to use in school and to take home. All the writing in English lessons was done using the laptop.

It is always dangerous to generalise from the particular, but the writer makes some points which appear in the HMI report already referred to, and some of his conclusions are corroborated in other research findings. The main points of Breese’s argument and conclusions are as follows: (a) He observes a marked increase in pupils’ motivation.

(b) He notes an increase in pupils’ concentration, application, and willingness to spend time on a task.

(c) He identifies the two main stages of the writing process - composing, and editing - which are already well understood, supported in the first National Curriculum for English, and widely regarded as contributing to good practice in the teaching of English generally.

(d) He goes further, and says that without such an understanding of the writing process there can beno real understanding of what is happening when pupils use IT in English.

(e) He points out the role of the teacher as consultant, as expert, as supporter, and rightly sees how important that contribution is to the success of the whole process.

(f) There is a real sense that progress can be measured, and measured without having to set a test, but assessed rigorously and against an explicit set of criteria.

(g) Finally, he raises the issue of time for writing, emphasising that the process is time-consuming, but it is only in that consumption of time that learning takes place.

3. A research overview To add to the picture, here are some points from a recent article by Ilana Snyder (1993) in which she reviews the research on writing with word processors. (2)

At one point Snyder comments on an interesting trend in the research: Agroiriiiig, more reflective thence iii. the uii,ecdotuI litemtiire is thu.t iimrdprocessiiig cunnot exist in u pedugogicd i~uc~rrrnt: id ni usb be uccornpuuied b.y good teucJi.ing in tJie writing process, uiith the erryili.usis 011. equipping strcchts i r i i t h useful strategies to intprooe tlwir iiiriting techii.iqites . . . Without effectiiie irv-itii1.g iiistrriction, there is u teiuftncy for iiiexperieiiced uiriters to srrbstitrrte uird delete r u t h r tliaii. to ud.. und reurrunge words.

We can now understand why Chris Breese’s article strikes such a sympathetic chord -because his observations are well supported by the wider anecdotal research evidence elsewhere. Furthermore, he comes back to the central importance of the teacher’s role as defined by an understanding of the writing process - the success of the technology depends on the soundness of the pedagogy, a view confirmed by the anecdotal research.

30 English in Education

There are other echoes later on in Snyder’s article: I t is of interest to note that there uppeurs to be un understunding in many of these studies th.ut ‘good’ in.striiction is .synonymous with u process m.odel for the temhing of writing . . . The upped of the process ni.ocM is probably explained b.y the fact that i t IIJUS the first ac t i id ly to scnitinise the elernmts in uiriting of irhich ‘good i,Lstructio,a’ni.ust take account.

How heartening is such a conclusion! If pupils are to get the best benefit from IT in English, teachers must understand the principles of the writing process, using a process model, providing appropriate activities for pupils to engage with and claim ownership of those skills, and finding sufficient time to allow those skills to be developed in pupils.

The National Curriculum: the second version There is then, so i t seems, a vast body of evidence which supports the following two statements: (a) Using IT in English has clear benefits for pupils.

(b)The best achievements in word processing are built on a firm understanding of the writing process (composing, editing, polishing, publishing).

I t has been a very sad experience for many of us to read the draft Revised Orders. How can we understand such a blatant disregard of the evidence? Why have virtually all references t o IT in English disappeared? Is the agenda behind i t a political one? There certainly isn’t an educational one being addressed here.

The reason given in the new Proposals (DfE, 1993) is: ‘ . . . no statutory requirements for IT since technology AT5 covers the same ground . . . ’ (paragraph 7.1). But does it? If we go to the School Assessment Folder for Key Stage 3, and in particular the ‘Materials to support the 1993 end ofkey stage 3 assessment of Te5 Information Technology Capability’ (SEAC 1992) we get some apparently helpful advice and some sound examples of practice across the curriculum.

However, the document is flawed in a number ofways. First, it attempts to distinguish between ‘activities that use IT’, and ‘those which are aimed at helping pupils increase their information technology capability itself. Surely capability is largely increased by using IT; for example, when commenting on assessment strategies, the document places emphasis on the reliability of results ‘. . . when pupils are encouraged to apply information technology to real tasks’.

Second, there is the whole issue of assessment. Why is the assessment of, say, some aspects of writing with computers separated off into the technology curriculum? Is there a shared set of values and principles in operation? And the final straw is that there will be a test about using IT for communicating information, rather than relying on assessing it in ‘real tasks’ as stated earlier in the document. Once again, the spectre of testing haunts the practice in the classroom.

Finally, there is the nightmare of attempting to monitor and collate teacher assessments over all five strands across the whole curriculum. Either there will be massive duplication, or else a chaotic, haphazard, and unco-ordinated experience for pupils and teachers.

Agolden opportunity has been missed to value the distinctiveness of IT in English, especially the contributions IT makes to the processes of reading and writing, not to mention ‘talk around the computer screen’. All the excellent developmental work has been swept away by a set of utilitarian imperatives militating against the processes which enable pupils to extend their language competence.

Computers an.d Literacy: Evidence Ignored 3 1

Just look at the number of references for ‘using’the hardware, software, systems, etc. It is true, there is a requirement for pupils to ‘consider the application of information technology in everyday life’, but what an opportunity missed to develop that into much more focused reflections, as described by Moore and Tweddle ( 1992) when they write about ‘authenticity, engagement, and reflection’.

There is a cynical view that what is being created is an education which provides success for an elite, and failure for the rest. Even the success is suspect, for i t will value those who can write to order in neat handwriting in strict time limits without the necessity to revise or rethink, with perhaps the possibility of using a word processor occasionally and uncritically.

But there is another aspect to writing with computers that has been saved for last. Snyder highlights i t in the last paragraph of her survey of the research:

117. coircliisioii., we hurie Ieurii.er1 niricli froni. the first ten y e w s ofconi.puter riiriting research. At this stuge, riie kiaoui thut striileri.ts upppur to write longer tarts uiith con~puters, and that the texts haw fenw errors. F i ~ r t h ~ r , their u.tfif.wlfs toiiiurds the useofcon7.pzcters for writing ure orierull positirie. A i i . i t n h r of stiirlies hrriie found tli.crt stiidmi.ts produce m o r ~ effective texts ~iiitli. iiiorcl processors tli.ciii. mith tru.ditioi7.ul tools. But, perhaps, most significantly, their use appears to produce a spirit of co-operation and collaboration in the classroom. This change in the interactions among students a d teachern may wellproduce a lean competitive classroom culture, a classroom in which students and teachers are using apnwerfil writing tool which has enormouspossibilities. [my emphases]

Is that one of the fears of our political masters - that teachers will foster ‘ a spirit of co-operation and collaboration’, resulting in a ‘less competitive classroom culture’? At a time when everything in life, i t seems, must be subjected to the impact ofmarketforces, the last thing certain people want to read is the statement, supported by research evidence, that ‘the spirit of co-operation and collaboration’ is not only alive and kicking, but needs further impetus to make i t more widespread, so that teaching and learning get better. And, horror of horrors, all that will be happening with computers, with their ‘enormous possibilities’ for communication, instantly, widely, and effectively.

So the consequence, it would seem, is that references t o IT in the draft revision of the National Curriculum for English have been consigned to Te5.

Conclusion: what can we do? It is still possible to believe that good teachers will always go beyond the constraints of the prescribed curriculum. However, i t does no harm to fight back, and to keep on collecting the evidence.

Snyder makes some interesting suggestions for some future research directions. One of the possible areas for development is outlined thus:

A ~ O l i . g ~ t 7 i ~ ~ i l l . ~ ~ upprouch to the stricl,y of exp~rieii.cecl uiorcl processor users, mh.o complete ull their ii)ritiii.g i i i i th tlit electronic tool, migh.t i id ica te eni.ergiug puftern.s of composing not yet obserried.

Or there may be projects which move right away from word processing, and into aspects of IT in English such as computer-generated simulations, or the effects on writing of electronic communication more generally.

But permeating these investigations must be increasingly forceful statements of the underlying principles and rationales. The agenda of the doubters (a polite euphemism) does not admit that language competence is the right of all, and doesnot value processes which prioritise collaboration

32 English in Education

and peer support. This is not a battle of ideologies, as some would like to see it, but a struggle between the weight of research and report evidence which influences practice on the one hand and, onthe other, an ideology which sees success for the few and failure for the rest. How else are we meant to see some of the statements and decisions about education over the last eighteen months? Why the tiers for the Key Stage 3 SATs? Why Shakespeare for some in the tests, but Shakespeare for all in the National Curriculum documentation? Why the drastic reduction in coursework at GCSE? Why the vilification of the GCSE results in the summer of 1992? Why the late change in funding of arts and social science degree courses?

I could go on, but my point is this - the doubters fear rising standards because they raise expectations and aspirations. The doubters areunwilling to support those hopes because that is not their view of how they want society to develop. If, in education, it is to be success for the few, this will also be the case in economic terms. The doubters want an economically powerful and well educated elite, while the rest will ‘know their place’, trained by years of failure and coming to terms with low self-esteem. Anything t h a t smacks of enti t lement, equal opportunities, multiculturalism, etc. is anathema, because i t militates against ‘knowing your place’.

OK, so I’ve got that off my chest, but everything that happens seems to fit the theory (unless John Patten has been so clever that his deliberate actions have destroyed the Far Right’s influence in education for ever). IT in English may be a microcosm, but it is a very important illustration of the macro- political agenda. And we ignore it at our peril. What we must do is fearlessly to defend the only intellectually honest way of countering the doubters. We must remain true to the belief that, in the gathering and analysing of data honestly collected and examinedingood faith, there is the way forward for our professionalism, and ultimately for the benefit of our pupils.

Notes 1. I am happy to acknowledge that Sally Tweddle made that point in her

contribution to a NATE Conference Day in Sheffield, May 1993. 2. See also Snyder’s article in the Summer 1992 edition of English in

Education (Volume 26, Number 21, pp. 35-45, ‘Writing with word processors: an effective way to develop students’ argumentative writ- ing skills’.

References DfE (1993) English for Ages 5 to 16 (1993): Proposals of the Secretary

of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Wales. HMSO HMI (1992) Information, Technology in Secondary Schools. HMI Monteith, M. (ed.) (1993) Contputers and Language. Intellect Books Moore, P. & Tweddle, S. (1992) The Integrated Classroom: Language,

School Examinations and Assessment Council (1992) School Assess-

Snyder, I. (1993) ‘Writing with word processors: a research overview’ in

Learn,ing & IT. Hodder & Stoughton

men.t Folder: In.forniatiori Technology Capability. HMSO

Education,al Research, 35, 1, pp. 49-68