Julie Adams - University of Leeds · Web viewJulie Adams. University of North London. ICT in ITT - The New Standards for the Award . of QTS. BERA 98 . [email protected] Contents

Julie AdamsUniversity of North London

ICT in ITT - The New Standards for the Award of QTS

BERA 98

[email protected]

Contents Page

Introduction 1

Background to the research 1

Hypothesis and limitations 2

Description of methodology 3

Current policy 4

Focus on word-processing 6

Analysis of questionnaires 7

Findings 8

Personal ICT skills 8

Improvement of personal ICT skills 10

Using ICT with pupils 12

Use of ICT within MFL departments 15

Support for using ICT with pupils 15

Access to ICT in partnership schools 16

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

AppendicesAppendix A IT audit on entry

Appendix B IT audit - mid-point of course

Appendix C IT audit - end of course

Appendix D IT audit - ipsative questionnaire

Appendix E Course structure diagram

Appendix F Students’ scores in ICT skills, arranged chronologically

Appendix G Students’ scores, arranged by skill area

Appendix H Use of ICT by MFL department in partnership schools

Appendix I Access to ICT facilities in partnership schools

ICT in ITT -The New Standards for the Award of QTSIntroductionFrom September 1998 all trainee teachers are required to achieve standards laid down in a new curriculum for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in order to be awarded Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). However, PGCE students are often discouraged by the lack of opportunity to use ICT during teaching practice, and some mentors feel unconfident about supporting students in this area. This paper looks at the results of a collaborative project between HE tutors and school-based mentors from the University of North London (UNL), which set out to enhance the use of ICT in the classroom for PGCE modern foreign languages (MFL) students, by creating an effective mode of measuring their abilities in order to inform classroom practice and the management of the Partnership. It also examines the tensions and paradoxes which arise from providing ICT training in partnership-based initial teacher education.

Background to the ResearchThe research has been carried out in the context of partnership-based initial teacher education, as required by DfEE Circular 9/92 and its successor Circular 10/97, which require that 24 out of the 36 weeks of a (secondary) PGCE course are spent in schools. The increased time spent in schools effectively means that the quality of student experience is largely dependent on which partnership school they are placed in. Teachers frequently profess to feeling unconfident about meeting the demands of the National Curriculum, and other areas such as ICT or new modes of assessment, and yet students are being placed in schools for longer precisely to learn about these areas. A recent National Council for Educational Technology (NCET) publication described the ICT training needs of student teachers of modern languages:

"Student teachers will look to teacher trainers to provide access to a variety of hardware and software and to offer examples of good practice. ... This is a lot to ask in the 12 weeks of the PGCE course that students will spend in the teacher training institution, and schools too have their role to play" (NCET file no.21, p.1).

This has meant that many Higher Education Institutions (HEI) now provide mentor training in a variety of areas, and this project also included training in IT for mentors (described below). However, Gilroy (1986 p.11) argues that there is a paradox in this role:

"... it seemed extraordinarily wasteful to require the university teacher educators to train school teachers in order that the school teachers could then do the job that had previously been carried out by the university teacher educators."

As a PGCE MFL tutor I have, for a number of years, become increasingly aware that only a minority of students completing the PGCE course have actually used ICT in their subject teaching, and that these tended to be the students who arrived with high levels of ICT skills and were placed in schools with existing good ICT practice. This reflects the picture that ICT is far from universally used in the teaching of MFL in schools: in information gathered by the NCET, 30 out of the 106 schools surveyed made little or no use of ICT in modern languages (NCET file no 21, p.2), whilst Haydn and Macaskill (1996, p.1) refer to a study identifying that over 50% of student teachers had not used a computer in the classroom by the end of their training.

Although the assessment of ICT use is embedded into all the items of summative assessment on the PGCE MFL course at UNL, it has, in fact, been possible to pass the PGCE without using ICT with pupils. Moreover, even where ICT was being used with pupils, this was not always representative of good teaching and learning practice. In a pilot of the questionnaire for this study, a graduate of the PGCE MFL 1996-97 cohort who had a high level of personal ICT skill and understanding described the use of ICT in one of her placement schools:

"They thought that labelling some pictures from Clip-Art with nouns was a good use of IT"

More worrying is the knowledge that the school she refers to has good ICT facilities and prides itself in its use of technology, and yet in practice computers are treated as little more than toys.

It was also apparent from conversations with the school-based subject mentors of our PGCE Partnership that some of the students not using ICT were playing off schools and the University against each other, by telling the former that they were not required, and the latter that they were not permitted to use ICT. This was occurring in spite of a variety of ICT sessions during the University-based parts of the course which sought to increase understanding of pedagogical implications as well as add value in terms of levels of personal ICT skill. Therefore the objective of this project was to inform the teaching of ICT on the PGCE MFL, particularly in the light of the requirements of Circular 4/98 “Teaching: High Status, High Standards” (DfEE 4/98).

Mentors requested ICT training if they were to be able to support student teachers effectively, as well as use ICT in their own teaching. This was carried out via a series of four twilight ICT training sessions, which included a variety of hands-on activities as well as discussions about ICT on the PGCE MFL course. Mentors were asked to take ideas provided by tutors at the training sessions and try them with their own pupils, reporting back on these activities at the next session. I personally made an effort to be a role-model for ICT use, and to be seen to use ICT wherever possible. This included, for example, learning to create “Excel” spreadsheets to prepare the data for this paper, and including my e-mail address in all correspondence.

Hypothesis and LimitationsMy hypothesis was that students arrive with differing levels of ICT competence, but that all add value to their ICT skills during the PGCE year. However, students’ use of ICT with pupils in the classroom shows a less consistent pattern. The sample originally consisted of all of the 27 PGCE MFL students but I chose to eliminate the findings from the questionnaires of those two students who failed to complete the PGCE, as they withdrew before the final questionnaire. Therefore the final sample was 25 PGCE MFL students who completed the course.

The University of North London prides itself on its work with mature students and students from the ethnic minorities, including refugees, and this is reflected in the School of Education with high numbers of student teachers who are over the age of 25 on enrollment to PGCE and BEd programmes. However, the limited scope of this research - 25 students doing a one-year course - is too narrow to determine whether levels of ICT use differ according to the age, gender, ethnic origin or prior experience of the students. The findings examined in this paper could presumably differ from one subject to another as PGCE students from other subject areas may

well arrive with a different level of confidence in ICT skills. The PGCE MFL course works in partnership with a variety of schools from all over the Greater London area (although all are non-selective state schools), and as shown in Table 8 not all schools take students for both main teaching practices. The size of the sample in this study and the varied pattern of student placement makes it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about availability of ICT resources according to type of school, so this feature has not been analysed.

Description of MethodologyThe aim of the data collection was:

to obtain a full picture of students’ ICT competences on entry to the PGCE to measure students’ progress in ICT skills during the PGCE to find out how many students used ICT with pupils during teaching practices to establish the barriers to and levels of support for use of ICT whilst on teaching practice

Questionnaires were used to audit the students’ ICT skills at the beginning, middle and end of the PGCE MFL course to enable analysis of their progress in learning to use ICT. The date chosen as the mid-point was the February half-term, just before students changed to go to their second teaching practice school, and after the completion of the first teaching practice and a series of ICT workshop sessions taught by myself (see course structure diagram, Appendix H). The questionnaires (shown in appendices A, B and C) each contained quantitative analysis of students’ ICT skills, as well as qualitative comments on ICT use and access in schools. The questionnaires were adapted from those used in the 1992-3 project “IT in Initial Teacher Education: The Modern Languages Perspective” (Higham & Macaro eds, 1993). It is a measure of the rapid change in ICT that I had to adapt the skills section of the questionnaire used for the Higham and Macaro project so that it included electronic communications and other technical features. However, as the Draft ICT Curriculum (TTA, 1998) was not available at the start of the project, the ICT competences audited do not fully match those in Circular 4/98. For the reasons explained above I chose to discontinue/disregard the analysis of database and spreadsheet use after the initial audit. I was able to achieve a 100% response rate for all questionnaires, as I distributed and collected them during teaching sessions. All questionnaires had students’ names on them to allow matching in order to track the progress and ICT use of individual students. Students were told that the information collected would form part of the profiling of their use of ICT, and that details of ICT competence at the appropriate stage would be passed to mentors in each placement school. However, they were assured that all other data would be confidential and that no personal details would be revealed to outside parties.

Definition of Terms“Pupil” is used to describe young people in compulsory schooling, whilst “student” is used to describe student teachers on a PGCE MFL course. “ICT skills”, as defined in the questionnaires (Appendices A, B and C), denotes student teachers’ level of competence in using ICT for purposes such as word-processing, preparing materials or communications. “Using ICT with pupils” means giving pupils structured opportunities to use computers in the classroom to learn modern languages.

I have also referred to the “use of text” by which I understand activities based around word-processing, e-mail, hypertext, DTP, Presentations software etc. I have consciously tried to avoid the use of the term “manipulation” when referring to activities with text as “Text-manipulation” is the usual name for a genre of MFL software such as “Fun with Texts”, “Minnie” and “DevTray” which can create quizzes and other activities from a piece of text. The term “Computer-Assisted Language Learning” has been avoided as this tends to be associated with types of software used for grammar practice, particularly in HE.

Current Policy ICT seems to appear in every government policy statement nowadays, ranging from the Lottery Paper to the White Paper Excellence in Schools (DfEE, 1997). It is clear that the current government sets great store by the use of Information Technology in education, and to this end it has promised funds from the National Lottery to “retrain” existing teachers so that they are “ICT-literate” (DfEE, 1997, p.41). It is also clear from Excellence in Schools that the government’s prioritising of technology reveals a view of education as “skills needed for work”, whilst it seems to contradict the “Back to Basics” intentions of the previous government. Yet there are contradictory messages about the use of technology in education, such as the supposed call to ban the calculator from the primary classroom (Independent, 12.3.98 and Burn, 1998). Many in education are suspicious of the perceived omnicompetence of the computer such as Laurillard in her book “Rethinking University Teaching” and here, Haydn and Macaskill:

“In spite of the unbounded faith which many politicians appear to invest in ICT, the experience of most people who actually work with learners in school and universities, suggest that computers are not educational miracles, and are not unproblematic in terms of their use in schools” (Haydn and Macaskill, 1996, p.10)

The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) has enshrined the government’s drive for technology in education in Circular 4/98, popularly known as the National Curriculum for Teacher Training. This makes it a requirement from September 1998 that to be awarded QTS trainees fulfill a series of conditions described in an ICT curriculum. The TTA has made no secret of the fact that it intends to use Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) to raise the ICT competence of the profession via a “bottom-up” approach (TTA, 1997). It is worth noting that the TTA has chosen not to make ICT competence a condition of entry to teacher education courses, in the same way that GCSEs in Maths, English and (for primary) Science are required for all entrants. Presumably this could have deterred even more potential recruits at a time of increasing teacher shortage. Originally the TTA announced that it would be necessary for all student teachers to reach level 8 of the pupils’ National Curriculum for IT, but Annie Grant of the TTA said from the outset that this was always intended to be a temporary proxy (TTA, 1997). Instead, this crude measure of competence has been replaced by a weighty and detailed curriculum of 2 sections in 15 pages, listing the kinds of understanding that NQTs must have and setting out various requirements.

Such requirements are not new, for example the Trotter Report of 1989 recommended that teacher trainers treat the use of IT as:

“a normal and inescapable part of teaching” (DES 1989, pp.20-21).

However, it could be argued that the difference between the conditions for teacher education now differ substantially from those in 1989 as (secondary) PGCE students spend just 12 of the 36 weeks of the course at the HEI, and training in all areas is supposed to be shared with partnership schools. However, already in the 1992-93 Higham and Macaro project HEI tutors were asking how much students could be “reasonably expected to achieve” in the twelve University-based weeks of the PGCE (p.9), whilst in the same project Green concludes that:

“Transferring a larger proportion of the course from the institutions to schools will not in itself lead automatically to improved opportunities for trainees to enhance their IT capability” (Higham & Macaro, 1993, p. 4).

It would then seem that the amount of content specified in the Circular 4/98 ICT curriculum is unrealistic and indeed it is questionable how much of this content is actually of long-term use; although the TTA, in its launch of the draft curriculum document at the 1998 BETT exhibition, said that they have tried to “future-proof” this curriculum, examination shows that many of the features mentioned are at the forefront of ICT development and consequently undergoing rapid and constant change. Recent research into the learning and training of engineers indicates that the half-life of their skills has reduced from 7-10 years to 3-5 years within the space of a decade and is expected to decrease still further (Walton, 1988). By extrapolating this research to the field of ICT, it is not unreasonable to assume that a significant proportion of the content in Circular 4/98 will be redundant in five years’ time, given the pace of change in this field. Mike Rumble, who was a member of the working party composing this curriculum addressed this point when he launched the ICT curriculum at the BETT 98 exhibition on 15th January, just before the publication of the consultation document:

"Personally I would like to think that we will reach a position where there will be no need to specify a separate ICT curriculum because it will be such a natural and integrated part of everyone's thinking" (Rumble, 1998).

Much of the content in the ICT curriculum can be summarised by the introductory statement:

“A. EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT METHODS1. Trainees must be taught how to decide when the use of ICT is

beneficial to achieve teaching objectives in the subject and phase...” (DfEE 4/98, p.19)

This is reminiscent of that statement in Circular 9/92 (the predecessor to Circulars 10/97 and 4/98) that NQTs are expected to achieve the competence of the:

“Ability to select and use appropriate resources, including Information Technology” (DFE, 1992, clause 2.3.7).

The level of detail in the rest of the Circular 4/98 actively detracts from this intention and as Sealy (from the University of Warwick) has shown in her textual analysis of this document, the emphasis is on the compulsion to achieve the requirements (Sealy, 1998). This could lead one to believe that rather than being a curriculum, it is in fact an instrument of inspection, and evidence for this exists in the TTA’s recent announcement of its inspection plans for 1998-99.

There is an increasing emphasis on the use of IT for its communications applications, so much so that the TTA now refers to IT as Information and Communications Technology - as does the Dearing Review of Higher Education - implying the use of

the Internet for example. In light of this a potentially important statement has been relegated to section B. 14 b. iii (DfEE 4/98, p. 29), which requires that NQTs know:

“how to judge the accuracy of information and the credibility of its source;”Interestingly this replaces a statement in the draft curriculum which was more strongly worded:

“that information must be evaluated in terms of its accuracy, validity, reliability, plausibility, bias;” (TTA, 1998, Section B 13b ii)

The advent of the National Grid for Learning and the Virtual Teacher’s Centre with their downloadable resources, as well as the use of the Internet make extreme demands on the professional judgement of a teacher in assessing the worth of any material they find when “surfing”. However, it is the one-sentence section listed at “A. 10. Opportunities to practise” which most occupies this research project:

“Trainees must be given opportunities to practise, in taught sessions and in the classroom, those methods and skills described above” (DfEE 4/98, p.23)

Focus on Word-processingRecently on the “Lingu@NET” (e-mail discussion group for MFL teachers, see bibliography) there has been some discussion about the availability of software for MFL teaching (26.6.98 ff). This was also a concern shared by the PGCE students as 3 of them mentioned suitable software as a problem in using ICT with pupils in their particular teaching practice schools:

“Virtually no software for languages - word-processing facilities only”“There were no MFL packages at school at all”“No languages software was installed”

In 1993 Higham and Macaro (1993, p.25) similarly reported that:“School IT co-ordinators consistently report that wordprocessing packages are the most commonly used generic programs.”

At the outset of the twilight training sessions with mentors I took a fairly bold decision to restrict the activities we would look at to those which centre around text, rather than the use of databases, spreadsheets, multi-media, CD-ROMS etc, and subsequently also adopted this approach with students. There were many factors which led to this decision such as the amount of ICT courses I have been on both as a school-based teacher and a PGCE tutor which show interesting ideas which I have been unable to implement in my teaching as I have not had access to the relevant hardware and/or software.

Coyle and Convery, participants in the Higham and Macaro project, would seem to support my decision (described above)to downplay databases and spreadsheets in MFL teaching as they ask:

“...might it not be more desirable for a different curriculum area (e.g. maths) to take on greater responsibility for developing pupil skills in this particular aspect of IT?” (Higham and Macaro, 1993, p.45)

I reasoned that good practice in secondary schools is to have a cross-curricular ICT policy, with the responsibility for developing individual ICT capabilities apportioned to particular curriculum areas. Therefore it made sense not to train the PGCE MFL students in databases and spreadsheets which they would be unlikely to use as MFL teachers in schools. I have consulted colleagues who are PGCE tutors for other subjects and they find much to support this decision, and see that they too would benefit from the ability to concentrate on the ICT areas which are potentially most useful for their subject.

From long contact with our partnership schools, I am aware that many of the MFL departments are restricted to the use of stand-alones or the “old” network room which run a variety of systems and software. I surmised that the one piece of software that could be guaranteed to be available in every school would be a word-processing package, whether this be “WordStar” on BBC Micros or the latest “Word” package in a Windows environment. Thus, any MFL activities designed for a word-processing package could be used on virtually any computer, and word-processing can create an infinite number of activities suitable for the MFL National Curriculum. I also reasoned that word-processing, once mastered, can be used as the basis for learning Hypertext, e-mail, DTP, Presentations software etc. There is further support for this decision to effectively narrow the ICT curriculum of MFL teachers: Lorna Allies of Allies Computing Ltd, a company which provides IT support to schools and industry, says:

“Using the keyboard and dealing with text are the key skills needed to encourage people and move them on to other IT use. So many people don’t use IT because they haven’t been taught that key skill - they’re introduced to more sophisticated techniques before they’re ready to try them” (Allies, 1997).

Even if the keyboard is replaced by another input method, such as voice recognition, Allies’ theory about dealing with text still has validity. Moreover, Haworth (of John Moores University) would seem to agree that there should not be too much emphasis on learning technical skills:

“For me the emphasis should be on language teachers who have learnt a bit of technology ... language teaching first, then ... the technical part” (Haworth, 1998).

During the course of the research the students themselves reported how useful word-processing was to them as a starting point for ICT use, which also has a positive impact on other parts of their teaching:

“I’m not very confident with using IT but I tried to use it on a lot of materials as I feel it looks far more professional.”

Creating a sense of achievement in using ICT can help students to be more confident about using ICT with pupils; thus another student, who had a low level of ICT skills on entry to the PGCE, gained a great deal of confidence from learning to use ICT to make her own materials and complete her PGCE assignments, eventually using ICT with pupils on her second teaching practice. When asked how much ICT she had used during the curriculum project towards the end of the PGCE, she wrote:

“Lots! I am now a whizzkid at AmiPro and Word 6. I typed all worksheets and mastered grids/boxes etc.”

However, I fully acknowledge the reservations about word-processing use expressed in NCET MFL Information File No. 27, that the use of word-processing for “presentational ‘copy typing’“ might be a possible sign of less successful use of IT, and I return to this in the Recommendations at the end of the paper.

Analysis of questionnairesThe questionnaires used self-administered quantitative analysis to measure students’ ICT competence, with an element of ipsative assessment added later. There were also sections for the qualitative measurement of ICT use with pupils, which has subsequently been subjected to some numerical analysis. The responses were analysed by applying a numerical value to the grading of ICT skills and awarded scores as follows:

I do not understand 0 points

I am not at all confident 1 point

I am partially confident 2 points

I am confident 3 points

A “threshold level” representing an adequate standard of competence was established in each skill area, by taking the “partially confident” score for each skill (i.e. 2 points) and subtracting two points (i.e. 16/27 for operational skills, 12/21 for word-processing and 10/18 for electronic communications). This means that in percentage terms each threshold level fell at or just below 60%. Having worked closely with partnership schools for the past six years I already had a clear impression of the disparity in practice from one department to another which reflects the NCET research mentioned earlier, and therefore decided not to make this the main focus of the study. Instead I added opportunities for the students to comment on this on the questionnaires, and have gained some valuable insights from seeing the ICT situation from their perspective. I realise that the students may have presented a biased view in some cases, particularly if they wanted to justify their own lack of ICT use. However, in some respects eliciting the opinions of the student teachers on this area may provide a more honest picture in the same way that Haydn and Macaskill (1996, p.3) report that there is a difference in the information about IT use presented by “providers” (i.e. headteachers and teachers) and “users” (i.e. pupils) or inspection findings. I have collated the information regarding students’ use of ICT with pupils into Tables 6 and 8, which show the placement of students in each school, and whether or not they used ICT with pupils whilst at that school. The qualitative responses were divided into rough response categories (described below).

There were some problems with the self-grading in ICT skills, as a few students appeared to deteriorate in their skill level after the start of the course. I investigated this further by issuing the students with a simple follow-up questionnaire, making an ipsative assessment of progress (Appendix D). This revealed that not one of the students had “got worse” in any of the skill areas, so I spoke to individual students about the discrepancy in scores. Student no. 10 said that she had improved in her use of ICT, but she was giving herself lower marks as she had learnt since the beginning of the year that she was not really fully confident in some of the skill areas. However, another student (no.23) reported that she had also improved in all of the skill areas and that any apparent regression in scores was due to her inconsistent application of the grading system. Another issue was that some students gave themselves scores of 0 or 1 for items such as “I can describe the differences between the use of networks and standalones” whereas I had seen them using computers in a variety of different

modes in my teaching sessions. When, again, I asked them about their low scores I received responses such as:

“Oh, I know how to do it but I didn’t realise that it was called that”“I know how to do it but I couldn’t explain the differences to anyone else”

FINDINGS - Personal ICT skills

TABLE 1 Summary of scores on entry to the PGCEn = 25 Operational Word-

processingElectronic communications

Total

Average score (%) 76% 72% 29% 62%

% scoring Threshold 80% 56% 40%

% scoring Full marks 32% 44% 4%

(Full breakdown of scores in Appendix F)

Table 1 shows the average of students’ total scores for each skill area (i.e. operational, word-processing and electronic communications), as well as the percentage of students who reached the threshold level in each skill area, and/or scored full marks in a skill area. As anticipated, students arrive on the PGCE MFL course with varying levels of ICT skills, with total scores ranging from 6% to 100%. This is not dependent on their age, country of origin, gender or previous field of study. I found that this limited sample did not present a clear pattern of students’ acquisition of prior ICT competence although it contradicted a few myths, such as younger students all being ICT-literate, and students in British universities using more ICT than in other countries. For example, Student no.25 who came to the PGCE MFL course straight from a collegiate university in England had done no ICT at all during her undergraduate studies, whilst mature students such as Student no.8 had acquired ICT skills in the workplace and Student no.9 had been a mature undergraduate at UNL where successful completion of an ICT module is compulsory for all Humanities degrees. Also, Student no.17 who scored full marks in every area of the ICT skills (including databases, spreadsheets, and all the other features such as fax-broadcasting and video-conferencing) took his first degree in France.

From the summary of scores on entry for each field in Table 1 above it is interesting to note that 80% and 72% of the students already reached the threshold levels in the areas of operations and word-processing respectively, implying that with appropriate pedagogic input they might be able to use ICT with pupils from the beginning of the course. However, there was a much lower level of competence in the electronic communications area with only 20% of the students reaching the threshold level. Similarly the average score for electronic communications is noticeably lower at 29%, with 11 students awarding themselves totals of zero in this area. In the first questionnaire (Appendix A) very few mentioned electronic communications software or hardware by name; this area has only in the last few years started to be a regular feature of home and business computing, so it is not surprising that fewer students have had experience of this prior to joining the course.

It is noteworthy that no-one scored zero, but an unexpected feature of the students’ scores on entry is the scores of Students no. 7 and no.16. Both listed some competence under operational skills but had never apparently used a word-processor. In the context of this research I had the opportunity to ask them how they had acquired these operational skills, and both stated that they had played computer games. This had added a dimension to my evaluation of software as a teacher educator and MFL teacher. One of the ICT learning opportunities I regularly provide for the PGCE MFL students is a series of drop-in sessions at the beginning of the academic year dealing with the use of Windows 3.1 and “Word” word-processing package which currently feature in the University’s open-access facilities. On examination of entry scores I realised that some of the students with the lowest scores had not made use of this opportunity. In future years I will look at the initial audit and require that low-scoring students attend relevant twilight sessions.

Improvement of Personal ICT skills

TABLE 2 Improvement in total scores during PGCE n = 25 Start of

courseMid-point of course

End of course

Total change

Average total score (%) 62% 78% 81%

Change (in percentage points) - +16 +3 +19

(Full breakdown of scores in Appendix G)

Table 2 shows that most of the improvement in ICT skills was accrued in the period between the start and the mid-point of the course. It is worth noting that during the first half of UNL’s PGCE course the students are present in the University more than at any other point during the year (see Appendix E). This suggests that students develop their ICT skills fastest while in the HEI, rather than in school. The change in the second half of the course is less obvious but still presents a consistent pattern of continued improvement.

TABLE 3 Improvement in levels of competencen = 25 students Operational skills Word-processing Electronic

communicationsStart Mid End Start Mid End Start Mid End

% scoringThreshold

80% 100% 100% 64% 92% 88% 24% 32% 52%

% scoring Full marks

32% 36% 36% 44% 44% 60% 4% 4% 20%


Table 3 shows consistency of improvement over time during the course of the PGCE year as well as across all 3 skill areas. This improvement is shown in all the measures,

i.e. raw scores, the number reaching the threshold levels and those scoring full marks. It is worth noting that fewer students reached an adequate level of competence by the end of the course in electronic communications, presumably because this was the area that had been covered least during the PGCE course. My intention next year is to make this a more explicit teaching point, as so many secondary schools now have access to the Internet, and it seems to be a successful way of catching the interest of those who lack confidence in ICT.

TABLE 4 Summary of changes in scores during the coursen = 25 students Operational

skillsWord-processing

Electronic communi-cations

Total

% of students ...

...scoring full marks at start and end 28% 36% 4% 23%

...showing improvement 48% 48% 84% 60%

...staying the same 8% 0% 8% 5%

...showing deterioration numerically 16% 16% 4% 12%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 4 shows a clear majority (60%) of students have improved in their ICT skills. If those scoring full marks at the start of the course (i.e. they did not need to improve) are removed from this calculation, then 78% of the remaining students showed improvement in their ICT skills. Of the 12% of observations who showed deterioration on the numerical score, all of them reported in the ipsative assessment that they had, in fact, improved or stayed the scheme in their ICT skills. If those students who scored full marks and those who applied the markscheme inconsistently are eliminated from the calculation, there is still a clear pattern of improvement across all the tests and over time.

Table 5 Average difference in scoresn = 25 students OP WP EC Total score

Average difference in score (%)(end score minus start score)

+13% +18% +28% +19%


Table 5 shows that students show demonstrable improvement in the marks achieved in all the areas of the ICT skills. The degree of improvement of individual students according to this measure is remarkable, with the three lowest scoring students at the start of the course, numbers 9, 18 and 25 improving by 45%, 67% and 55% respectively. The various measures of improvement all show that, with the exception of Student no. 17, who had full scores in all areas at the start of the PGCE, all students improved their level of ICT competence during the PGCE year. (Even

Student no.17, who scored 100% on entry, learned to use ICT with pupils, which he had not previously done).

Using ICT with pupils

TABLE 6 Use of ICT with pupils, correlated to total scoresStart Mid End

Student no.

Used BP1

Used BP2

Used ICT with pupilsnil/once/twice

1 44% 0 68% 1 65% 1 2 30% 0 74% 1 73% 1 3 73% 0 88% 0 88% 0 4 68% 0 83% 1 79% 1 5 62% 0 76% 1 100% 1 6 45% 1 79% 0 83% 1 7 6% 0 53% 1 52% 1 8 73% 0 82% 0 82% 0 9 98% 1 98% 1 100% 2

10 70% 0 70% 0 65% 0 11 30% 0 76% 1 82% 1 12 94% 1 97% 1 100% 2 13 83% 1 74% 0 80% 1 14 73% 0 95% 1 100% 1 15 83% 0 79% 1 77% 1 16 8% 0 62% 0 74% 0 17 100% 0 100% 1 100% 1 18 91% 0 92% 1 94% 1 19 68% 1 91% 0 86% 1 20 82% 0 85% 1 89% 1 21 38% 1 50% 1 58% 2 22 83% 0 80% 1 85% 1 23 61% 0 64% 0 52% 0 24 67% 1 65% 1 94% 2 25 20% 0 67% 1 74% 1

Average 62% 78% 81%Used ICT with pupils

7(28%)

17 (68%)

Table 6 shows the pattern of individual students’ ICT use with pupils, matched to their scores at the various audit points during the course. It is clear (by consulting Appendix F) that all 7 of the students who used ICT during the first teaching practice already reached the threshold levels in operational skills and word-processing at the start of the course. This would seem to indicate that students using ICT during the first teaching practice are likely to be those who arrive with an adequate level of competence in ICT. However, it does not necessarily follow that students with a high level of personal skill will always use ICT with pupils, as this is also dependent on

the school where students are carrying out teaching practice. For example, Student no. 17, who scored full marks on all areas at the start of the PGCE did not use ICT during his first teaching practice. Similarly four of the five students who failed to use ICT with pupils during the PGCE year all had scores which put them well inside the threshold levels for operational skills and word-processing at the start of the course (and the fifth achieved threshold levels by the mid-point of the course). These findings reflect those of Haydn and Macaskill who state that:

“The competence model [of assessment in teacher education] understates the difference between personal competence and awareness of the potential of IT on one hand, and classroom confidence and experience in using IT with children on the other” (Haydn and Macaskill, 1996, p.8)

It is difficult to tell from the data collected in this project whether using ICT with pupils adds to students’ levels of personal skills, but once students use ICT in the classroom they undoubtedly feel a sense of achievement, especially those like the student quoted here who had a low level of ICT skills on entry:

“I took a whole year 7 class in the IT room to word-process a menu in French. They enjoyed it very much and so did I. [It was] a pleasure to see them focussed, on-task, motivated, even though they worked in class as well.”

In the various questionnaires not one student reported a negative experience of using ICT with pupils. However, this does not take account of students too embarrassed to admit classroom disasters to their PGCE tutor, or those students who avoided disasters by never using ICT with pupils.

TABLE 7 % of Students using ICT with pupilsUsed no ICT with pupils 20%

Used ICT with pupils on one teaching practice 64%

Used ICT with pupils on both teaching practices 16%

Total 100%

Table 7 shows that 20% of the students did not use any ICT with pupils during the course of the PGCE year. This is worrying as it would mean, from September 1998, that these students could not be awarded QTS. However, it must be emphasised that this year’s cohort were aware that passing their PGCE was not dependent on using ICT with pupils and therefore they might not have made this a priority whilst on teaching practice. In the Recommendations at the end of this paper I outline the ways in which I will be improving this facet of the course in future years. It is of further interest that all 5 of the students who did not use ICT with pupils were perceived as having problems at some time during the course, either with health/personal problems, or were weaker students requiring extra support. This may well be an indication that student teachers, who have so much to learn in their PGCE year, find the use of ICT with pupils an added challenge unless this is an area in which they feel confident or they are given adequate support.

TABLE 8 Students’ use of ICT with pupils according to school placementn = 25 Students Block practice 1 Block practice 2

School 1st Student 2nd Student 3rd Student 4th Student

A 11-16 community M y y y n

B 11-18 comprehensive G n n y y

C 11-18 comprehensive M n n n n

D 16-19 Sixth Form M n n - n

3rd Student (BP1) n

E 11-16 comprehensive M y (-) y n

F 11-18 comprehensive M n (-) y y

G 11-18 comprehensive M y y y (-)

H 11-18 GM comprehensive M n n y -

I 12-16 comprehensive M n n n -

J 11-18 GM comprehensive B y n y -

K 11-18 comprehensive B y - y -

L 11-16 comprehensive B n - y -

M 11-16 comprehensive M n - y -

N 11-18 comprehensive M n n - -

P 11-18 GM comprehensive M n - - -

Q 11-16 comprehensive M - - y y

R 11-18 Language College M - - y -

S 11-18 Language College B - - y -

T 11-18 comprehensive G - - n -

U 11-18 GM comprehensive M - - y -

V 11-18 comprehensive G - - n -

% students used ICT with pupils 28% 68%

Key: M = mixed, B = Boys, G = Girls, GM = Grant-maintained, y = used ICT with pupils, n = did not use ICT with pupils, - = no student placed, (-) = student placed, but failed to complete PGCE

Table 8 shows that students are more likely to use ICT with pupils later in the course, with 68% doing so in the second teaching practice compared with only 28% in the first. This is clearly shown by schools B, F, H, L, and M where the students placed here for the first teaching practice used no ICT with pupils, whilst students placed here for their second teaching practice - and who presumably had access to the same ICT facilities - did use ICT for teaching MFLs. This would seem to be an obvious finding i.e. that students gain more confidence as they progress through the year. However, choice of teaching practice school may well militate against some students being able to use ICT with pupils during their second teaching practice. Indeed Students no. 6 and no. 13 (who were in the same school) and Student no.20 all failed to use ICT on their second teaching practices although they had used it on their first,

and all 3 students cited problems of access to ICT on their questionnaires. There are also still instances of students stating that they had not been able to use ICT during teaching practice whilst other students in the same school did use ICT with pupils. This is most clearly shown in Table 8 (School F) where one student in the second teaching practice did not use ICT with pupils whilst the other student in the same school at the same time did, and similarly in School J in the first teaching practice. This adds weight to the view I gained from speaking to mentors that some students do not use ICT with pupils out of choice or because of a lack of confidence, rather than because of problems with access to ICT.

Use of ICT within MFL departmentsThe students’ responses about the use of ICT in MFL department in their partnership schools fall into four broad categories:Category 1. The majority of the department uses ICT with pupils, and there is a

positive attitude towards this within the department (4 responses)Category 2. There is an uneven pattern of ICT use within the department i.e. only

one teacher in the department uses ICT regularly with pupils (7 responses)

Category 3. ICT is not used with pupils in the department, but is used for other purposes such as administration and materials (2 responses)

Category 4. ICT is not used in the MFL department, and/or there is a negative attitude to ICT use within the department (14 responses)

Again, the number of responses in category 4 is very worrying, as from September 1998 these schools will have a role to play in training student teachers in the use of ICT with pupils. The number of responses in Category 4 (14) also outnumbers the responses in all the other categories (13), implying that there are a majority of MFL departments not using ICT for any purpose. However, teachers from some of the schools which feature in this category did come to some of the twilight ICT training sessions provided for mentors, suggesting that this situation may be improving. The students’ responses are reproduced verbatim as Appendix H.

Support for using ICT with pupilsSeveral of the students’ comments highlighted the importance of support when they were starting to use ICT for other than personal use:

“I have no problems with typing - it is all the other bits that frightened me”From my experience of observing students on teaching practice and subsequently marking their block practice files, I have formed the impression that (whatever their level of personal competence) they are more likely to use ICT with pupils if there is some support for them, either in setting up the task, or delivering it in the classroom, and some of the students’ comments support this view:

“There was an IT technician [sic] full-time in the class with the teacher so this makes the job easy.[This person was actually the school’s IT co-ordinator who was assigned nearly full-time to support subject teachers in their ICT delivery]”

In some cases students had to be pro-active if they wanted to use ICT with pupils by first identifying the person who could provide them with the necessary support, as so many of them reported that only one person in the MFL department used ICT:

“I created my own opportunities by talking to the IT co-ordinator who was very helpful.”

These findings must be contrasted with the fact that employing departments often look to the NQT to support them with ICT use! (Higham and Macaro, 1993, p.31.) I have tried to address this point in the ICT handbook I am planning for the PGCE MFL course at the University of North London (see Recommendations) by including a section aimed at subject mentors called “Supporting your student with ICT”. This gives suggestions for supporting student teachers effectively which require no technical expertise in ICT. Support in using IT in the placement school is clearly a key issue, and some schools seem not to be providing this, even though a large part of an HEI’s funding is now transferred to partnership schools to pay for their involvement in the training. One of the students summed up the situation in her response:

“I wish I had been told how to use the IT room. I actually like IT and would have been prepared to invest time in learning about using the IT room and would have liked to use it with pupils. I know everybody is busy in schools but I think ... a member of staff should spend time to do a proper induction with the IT room.”

Access to ICT in partnership schoolsIn a survey of 120 MFL departments in 1992 Atkinson reported that:

“Several teachers wrote comments on their survey forms to the effect that access to such facilities was theoretically possible but rendered difficult in practice by the block time-tabling of computer studies classes” (Atkinson, 1992, p.31).

Similarly in the study by Haydn and Macaskill (1996, p.24), only 26 heads of departments out of 106 reported: “problem-free access to the computer room(s)”. These findings echo the results of my own where students were invited to comment on access to ICT facilities during their block practices, which 15 of the 25 students did. I categorised their responses into 3 loose groupings; 2 responses stated that access was easy and/or regularly timetabled; 6 responses implied that access to ICT was not unduly problematic but students may have had to negotiate room bookings. Finally, 8 respondents stated that there were substantial difficulties in gaining access to ICT facilities for the purpose of teaching MFL. This, again, is a worrying finding, as it would seem that about half of the students had extreme difficulty in gaining access in order to use ICT with pupils. The students’ responses have been reproduced verbatim as Appendix I.

Conclusions“As the National Curriculum requirements take effect in schools, then within the next ten years student teachers will enter the profession having been through the system “ (Higham and Macaro, 1993, p.57)

Higham and Macaro’s optimism about the gradually increasing ICT competence of entrants to PGCEs would seem not to be borne out by the entry scores of the latest student teachers to have been through the British educational system such as Students no. 11 and no. 25. Moreover, differences in scores of ICT competence on entry to the PGCE course will remain an issue at UNL where we have high numbers of mature students and students who were educated abroad. However, it is clear from my findings with the 1997-98 cohort of the PGCE MFL that all the students added value to their ICT skills whatever the level of skill they arrive with. This improvement occurs to such an extent that all of them left the course with at least an adequate

understanding (as defined by my threshold level)of operational aspects of ICT, and 96% of them left with at least an adequate understanding of word-processing. (Even the student who awarded herself low marks in this area actually used ICT with pupils on both teaching practices.) I believe I have fulfilled the objective of informing the teaching of ICT on the PGCE MFL, in preparation for the requirements of Circular 4/98. Therefore I am not sure if similar audits with future cohorts would achieve the same results as this project has informed my practice so much.

The findings suggest that support from the placement school and access to ICT might be significant factors in students’ use of ICT during teaching practice. This year there were still 20% of the cohort who did not use ICT with pupils, and in future years they could not be awarded QTS. I have already mentioned that these findings represent one PGCE MFL group in a context which is not necessarily typical. Other PGCE courses might have fewer problems in recruiting partnership schools than in the London context, and might therefore be able to “select” partnership schools with good ICT practice and support. However, the NCET figures mentioned earlier clearly point to a wide variation in practice in ICT for teaching MFL nationally, as do the students’ comments from this project:

“Very, very little [use of ICT] - the department does not have an IT development plan”“There wasn’t very much enthusiasm within the MFL department for IT”

The students’ qualitative responses on the questionnaires revealed another feature of the use of ICT in education in that, however good the resources, they may not always be used. One student reported:

“The school I was at claims to have the best IT facilities in the country. MFL teachers don’t use them.”

This reflects the findings of a 1991 DES survey (referred to in Atkinson, 1992, p. vii), which revealed that 65% of modern language teachers felt they lacked confidence in using IT. A good parallel here is again the use of the calculator, where Burn (1998, p.7) reports that:

“...telling teachers to use calculators without access to training is highly problematic.”

The ICT curriculum is the only part of Circular 10/97 which did not have to be implemented for cohorts graduating in the 1997/98 academic year. This is perhaps a tacit recognition by the TTA of the difficulties involved with the ICT education of student teachers. In many respects Circular 4/98 is to be welcomed as it replaces what Green (in Higham & Macaro, 1993, p.89) describes as: “The extensive and bewildering range of statutory and non-statutory guidelines concerning IT competence”. However, teachers must make sense of this lengthy set of guidelines and turn it into something workable for their subject area. This impetus will perhaps for a long time have to come from higher education as so many schools still seem unwilling, or unable, to train new teachers in using ICT:

“Although university departments of education generally have extensive computer facilities, software resources, and specialist staff with experience and expertise in the field of computer assisted learning, the new balance of partnership makes it difficult for PGCE students to make the most of these assets. ... The proponents of entirely school-based initial teacher education ... fail to address the important question of how beginning teachers are to gain a

broad experience in IT when the departments they are working in do not use computers” (Haydn and Macaskill, 1996, p.4).

Recommendations

1. Measure students’ level of ICT skill on entry and set individualised targets accordingly.

2. Provide remedial learning opportunities where students have low levels of ICT skills.

3. Have a clear focus on using ICT to teach the subject which takes regard of other curriculum subjects i.e. that ICT use in MFL will probably be based around the use of text, rather than (for example) spreadsheets and databases. (Such a decision should be reviewed regularly in light of changes in technology and the growing competence of entrants.)

4. Structure the progression of learning opportunities carefully during the year e.g. observing ICT use with pupils in a range of subjects during the early stages of school experience.

5. Provide real opportunities for students to use ICT such as an “Integrated Learning Environment” i.e. an electronic noticeboard accessible via the Internet which students can use whilst in school placement. HEI Tutors can create a real need to use such a resource, by posting important information here, and only here, and also have the option of monitoring student use. (It is relatively easy to provide this opportunity at UNL as these resources are readily available, however, this opportunity may not be available to a smaller provider such as a SCITT.)

6. Ensure that assessment of the PGCE provides opportunities to record different types of ICT use by students.

7. Continue to support mentors with their ICT development. 8. Create other opportunities for students to use ICT with pupils if this in not

possible during main teaching practice placements. (The PGCE at UNL has short-term school-based teaching experiences known as Friday projects and a school-based curriculum project [see Appendix E] when students could be sent to schools with suitable ICT access and facilities.)

9. Provide a bank of ideas for students and partnership schools which represent good practice in the subject teaching and good use of ICT skills. (This implies that subject tutors may have to have a large amount of input into ICT sessions, which is the norm at UNL, rather than leaving ICT to be taught by “specialists” in generic sessions.)

10. Compile relevant information, including the 9 points above, into a handbook for mentors and students, which will help to ensure a common understanding of the ICT requirements.

References and Bibliography

Allies L (1997) From informal interview with Lorna Allies, 27.9.97 IT in the Languages Classroom

London: CILT/NCETBurn E (1998) "A Calculator Climate" in University of North London Education

File No.2: September 1998 pp.3-7, London: UNL School of Education

DES (1989) Report of the Information Technology in Initial Teacher Education Expert Group London: HMSO

DFE Circular 9/92 Initial Teacher Training (Secondary Phase) London: DFE, 1992

DfEE (1997) Excellence in Schools London: DfEE, 1997DfEE Circular 4/98 Teaching: High Status, High Standards London: DfEE, 1998Gilroy P (1996) "Forward to the past: the development of school-based initial teacher

education in England and Wales" in Trafford J (ed) (1996) Learning to Teach, University of Sheffield Division of Education

Haworth W (1998) Notes from a presentation at "Research Forum, Information technology: the pedagogical implications for language teaching and learning" organised by Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research 6-7.1.1998

Haydn T & Macaskill C (1996) IT and Initial Teacher Education: bridging the gap between what is and what might be London: University of London Institute of Education

Higham & Macaro E eds (1993) IT in Initial Teacher Education: The Modern Languages Perspective, University of York

Independent (12.3.98) "Don't let dogma kill the calculator"Laurillard D (1993) Rethinking University teaching - a framework for the

effective use of educational technology London: Routledge, 1993Lingu@NETforum: [email protected] or

http://www.ncet.org.uk/linguanetNCET ML Information File no. 21 IT in ITE: the Modern Languages Perspective,

October 1992NCET ML Information File no. 27 (undated) Good Practice in ITRumble M (1998) Notes from a presentation given at the BETT 98 Exhibition, 15.1.98 Sealy A (1998) Paper given at The Association for Language Awareness conference,

Quebec, 23-26.6.98TTA (1997) Notes from a presentation at "Consultation conference on the new

curricula for ITT" London, 8.4.97TTA (1998) Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for the Use of

Information and Communications Technology in Subject Teaching, Consultation Draft, January 1998, London: HMSO

Walton R et al (1988) Innovating to compete San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Appendix APGCE Modern Languages

Information Technology Audit on entry (September)

Name:

Where and how did you acquire your IT skills (whatever level)? e.g. school, higher education, workplace, self-taught

Which IT have you used? (Brief details of hardware and software e.g. Mac for Word-processing, IBM PS/1 with MS Word and Windows 3.1, Amstrad PCW, Psion 3a)

Please use this markscheme for all your answers

I do not understand I am not confident I am partially confident

I am fully confident

? / X

Operational ? [ ] / X Word-processing ? [ ] / X

switch on/off highlight text

load disk delete text

format disk insert text

make backup disk (using single drive)

format characters

save a file format paragraphs

retrieve a file format page margins

transfer a file search text

delete file

use a mouse

Databases ? [ ] / X Spreadsheets ? [ ] / X

Retrieve data using a simple search

comprehend data

retrieve data using a complex search

enter data

input data on a pre-set record enter formulae

create a record set up a spreadsheet

devise a data file manipulate data

print out data

display data in graphic form from a database

Electronic communications ? [ ] / X Other ? [ ] / X

Use e-mail Describe differences between the use of networks and standalones

Send e-mail file attachments Use a file server to access different networks

Navigate a home page Video-conferencing

Locate webpage using URL Fax broadcasting

Use a search engine

Use hypertext

(Based on the questionnaire devised by Do Coyle and Ann Convery for “IT in ITE: The modern languages perspective”)

Appendix BPGCE Modern Languages

Information Technology Audit - mid-point of course

Name:




? / X






format characters




delete file

use a mouse

Electronic communications ? [ ] / X Other ? [ ] / X

Use e-mail Describe differences between the use of networks and standalones

Send e-mail file attachments Use a file server to access different networks

Navigate a home page Video-conferencing

Locate webpage using URL Fax broadcasting

Use a search engine

Use hypertext

Appendix C

PGCE Modern LanguagesInformation Technology Audit - end of course

Name:




? / X






format characters




delete file Has this improved/stayed the same/got worse since your last profile?

use a mouse

Has this improved/stayed the same/got worse since your last profile?

Electronic communications ? [ ] / X

Use e-mail

Other ? [ ] / X Send e-mail file attachments

Describe the use of networks and standalones

Navigate a home page

Use a file server to access different networks

Locate webpage using URL

Video-conferencing Use a search engine

Fax broadcasting Use hypertext



Appendix D

Student Competences in ITPGCE Modern Languages 1997-1998

Name

In Operational use, have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?In Word-processing, have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?

Justify this opinion

In Databases, have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?


In Spreadsheets, have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?


In Electronic Communications, have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?


In Other use (e.g. networks, file servers, e-mail) have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?


In using IT with pupils, have you... improved? stayed the same? got worse?


Appendix FStudents’ scores in ICT skills, arranged chronologically

Start of Course Mid-Point of course End of course

OP WP EC Total OP WP EC Total OP WP EC Total1 20 9 0 29 21 18 6 45 22 15 6 43 2 12 8 0 20 20 19 10 49 17 21 10 48 3 26 20 2 48 27 21 10 58 26 19 13 58 4 22 16 7 45 27 19 9 55 27 17 8 52 5 22 19 0 41 27 17 6 50 27 21 18 66 6 18 12 0 30 22 21 9 52 24 21 10 55 7 4 0 0 4 18 13 4 35 16 10 8 34 8 27 21 0 48 27 21 6 54 27 21 6 54 9 27 21 17 65 27 21 17 65 27 21 18 66

10 25 21 0 46 19 21 6 46 16 21 6 43 11 8 6 6 20 22 20 8 50 24 20 10 54 12 27 21 14 62 26 21 17 64 27 21 18 66 13 23 21 11 55 20 20 9 49 23 21 9 53 14 27 21 0 48 27 21 15 63 27 21 18 66 15 26 21 8 55 24 20 8 52 25 18 8 51 16 5 0 0 5 19 18 4 41 24 19 6 49 17 27 21 18 66 27 21 18 66 27 21 18 66 18 27 21 12 60 27 21 13 61 27 21 14 62 19 19 21 5 45 27 21 12 60 27 20 10 57 20 27 17 10 54 27 20 9 56 27 21 11 59 21 17 8 0 25 18 9 6 33 23 9 6 38 22 27 21 7 55 26 21 6 53 26 21 9 56 23 19 15 6 40 20 16 6 42 17 11 6 34 24 22 13 9 44 19 16 8 43 25 21 16 62 25 9 4 0 13 20 20 4 44 24 21 4 49

Average20.52 15.12 5.28 40.92 23.36 19.04 9.04 51.44 24.08 18.92 11.28 53.64

Appendix GStudents’ scores, arranged by skill area

Student no. Operational skills Word-Processing Electronic CommunicationsStart Mid End OP Diff Start Mid End WP Diff Start Mid End EC Diff

1 20 21 22 2 9 18 15 6 0 6 6 6 2 12 20 17 5 8 19 21 13 0 10 10 10 3 26 27 26 0 20 21 19 -1 2 10 13 11 4 22 27 27 5 16 19 17 1 7 9 8 1 5 22 27 27 5 19 17 21 2 0 6 18 18 6 18 22 24 6 12 21 21 9 0 9 10 10 7 4 18 16 12 0 13 10 10 0 4 8 8 8 27 27 27 0 21 21 21 0 0 6 6 6 9 27 27 27 0 21 21 21 0 17 17 18 1

10 25 19 16 -9 21 21 21 0 0 6 6 6 11 8 22 24 16 6 20 20 14 6 8 10 4 12 27 26 27 0 21 21 21 0 14 17 18 4 13 23 20 23 0 21 20 21 0 11 9 9 -2 14 27 27 27 0 21 21 21 0 0 15 18 18 15 26 24 25 -1 21 20 18 -3 8 8 8 0 16 5 19 24 19 0 18 19 19 0 4 6 6 17 27 27 27 0 21 21 21 0 18 18 18 0 18 27 27 27 0 21 21 21 0 12 13 14 2 19 19 27 27 8 21 21 20 -1 5 12 10 5 20 27 27 27 0 17 20 21 4 10 9 11 1 21 17 18 23 6 8 9 9 1 0 6 6 6 22 27 26 26 -1 21 21 21 0 7 6 9 2 23 19 20 17 -2 15 16 11 -4 6 6 6 0 24 22 19 25 3 13 16 21 8 9 8 16 7 25 9 20 24 15 4 20 21 17 0 4 4 4

Average20.52 23.36 24.08 3.56 15.12 19.04 18.92 3.8 5.28 9.04 10.64 5.36

Appendix H

Use of ICT by MFL department in partnership schoolsn = 16 responsesCATEGORY 1· Rota basis - all used to full potential· Same as me [one IT class every 4 weeks]; teacher’s attitudes are very positive as it is

departmental policy· The attitude of the MFL department and especially HoD is very positive towards IT · The department has a great attitude· CATEGORY 2· Some used IT regularly with pupils· Quite a lot for one teacher who is in charge of delivering IT within the department· They used IT sometimes but not very often at all because of the problems mentioned

above [technical]· Only one teacher is using a computer on a regular basis with his classes. One teacher

never uses it, other teachers about once a term · As far as I know they were not using it at all (except one teacher)· Very forward-looking mentor who often uses ICT, others used lots for worksheets, not

so much with classes· One teacher used word-processing extensively with GCSE groups and established pen-

pal links· CATEGORY 3· Most used it only for themselves· They record their AT levels on computer/use the Internet/occasionally to do worksheets· CATEGORY 4· No other staff, except one part-timer, ever used IT. All said they were computer-phobic.· None. No access to computer rooms - only used for materials· The school is trying to set up links with IT department· Very, very little - the department does not have an IT development plan· .01% [sic]· Not used in the department· IT is not really used by MFL department· They do not use it a lot· Nobody in the department uses IT for MFL teaching· Virtually no software for languages· MFL department does not use IT but helped me taking the group there· No one uses IT because of access difficulties to network rooms· There wasn’t very much enthusiasm with the MFL department for IT. There were no

MFL packages at school at all· Very little use of IT in MFL

Appendix I

Access to ICT facilities in schoolsn = 15 responses· Network rooms are

allocated on a rota basis

· Very often and there were no problems to access the rooms [fortnightly]

· There were only 2 hours a week allocated to the MFL department, but I managed to get another one

· No problem with access (except sometimes too busy) the best room was not often available

· The network room was available, however there were problems for pupils to connect to the stations [and] no languages software was installed

· I could book the room for lessons - had to book a room well in advance

· I created my own opportunities by talking to the IT co-ordinator, who was very helpful

· There was very limited access to rooms

· Timetable didn’t allow us access

· The IT timetable was always full

· The (MFL) IT room is not used at all because it is not working properly

· They do not take pupils to the IT room

· I couldn’t teach IT because the room was fully booked

· Not much, the room was usually booked at the time that I was taking language classes

· Difficult to gain access

Documents

Julie Adams - University of Leeds · Web viewJulie Adams. University of North London. ICT in ITT - The New Standards for the Award . of QTS. BERA 98 . [email protected] Contents