This week’s stop on the journey through Digital Technologies involves Coding.
As we discovered in Week 1, the idea that children are digitally “native” in a technology-driven age is accepted. However, Beauchamp (2012) suggests there is a disparity between the accessibility to technology and the way in which it is used in the home. He identifies that children’s interaction with technology in the home is primarily game based, despite the intentions of parents who wish to make a link between home and education. In agreement with this finding, Kerwalla and Crook (2006) state “…for most children, game playing becomes a predominant form of domestic use.”
Consequently, it is not surprising to find that educational technology aimed at children is presented in the form of a “game”. Using the five semiotic systems (see fig. 1) found in multimodal texts (which computer-based games are), children can receive vital educational input without realising they are being formally “educated”. Rather than being passive recipients of “lecture” based presentations with the aim of retention of fact, children now have the opportunity to interact fully with their learning, constructing their own outcomes and developing their own understanding. Whitebread (2006) proposes that using the game-based format allows “problems” which are posed to children to be presented in a relatable context. They can be simplified to present the focus information to young children and problems can be re-framed and re-presented in several differing contexts, allowing for the development of early critical thought processes, maximising engagement and inclusion. The World Government Summit (2016) identifies that “gamification”, although not officially defined or universally accepted in education practice, offers significant benefits in engaging children in essential learning.
So, why “Coding” and what is it?
It is widely agreed across Government and Industry that education in digital technology is essential. Not only do children need to know how to operate digital technologies but they also need to know how they function; points agreed by both Naughton (2012) and Curtis (2013). The simplest, introductory concept in understanding how digital technologies function is basic “Coding”. Using basic computer code, children can create chains of instructions to produce a planned outcome. Presented using elements of “gamification”, children can engage with programs such as ScratchJr to explore and develop skills in creative thinking, logic and reasoning and problem-solving while simultaneously receiving instruction in how digital technology functions.
The ScratchJr program presents an attractive and simple to use interface which allows children to create their own adventures via a simple “drag and drop” format. Offering a range of scenes and characters children can add text and sound to quickly produce a pleasing and rewarding outcome. The ability to easily move between scenes and edit makes the program accessible to even very young children, with adult assistance. Older children may be able to use the program to produce a presentation after a period of collaborative pre-planning.
The simple and easily correctible format of ScratchJr allows children the freedom to experiment and be independently creative. This type of learning freedom encourages engagement and provides for a greater breadth of knowledge to be developed (World Government Summit, 2016). The lack of consequence for “failure” and lack of need for strengths in literacy and maths make ScratchJr equally accessible to those children who may experience difficulties through ASN.
After initial experimentation, using ScratchJr to complete this week’s assignment task was straightforward. The wide range of available characters and scenes made formulating a storyline easy and incorporating the elements of sound and text added an interactive dimension. Experimentation was possible and changing my mind was easy once I had grasped the basic principles of constructing each character’s code. The end result was successful and pleasing to interact with proving that, despite initial apprehension, the instruction of “create an interactive story to promote literacy skills” was sufficient prompt to produce a finished piece of work.
Having chosen to focus on Early Level when addressing this assignment, I considered the following Experiences and Outcomes could be addressed using the ScratchJr program:
- TCH 0-01a: “I can explore digital technologies and use what I learn to solve problems and share ideas and thoughts.“
- TCH 0-14a: “I understand that sequences of instructions are used to control computing technology.”
- TCH 0-15a: “I can develop and sequence of instructions and run them using programmable devices or equivalent.”
- LIT 0-09b / LIT 0-31a: “I enjoy exploring events and characters in stories and other texts and I use what I learn to invent my own, sharing these with others in imaginative ways.“
So how did it go?
On reflection, I think it would have been beneficial to include a vocal recording of the text and a sound effect specific to each character. My chosen feature of Literacy was “alliteration” and it would be beneficial for children engaging with the final product without adult support to hear the repeated sounds.
From completing this week’s study, further reading, reflection and assignment I have developed a broader understanding of the concept of coding and its relevance in the context of Primary Education. I feel more comfortable with the practical elements of the task and can see the potential to develop my own tasks which could be used in placement experience and further practice. With a particular personal interest in the challenges faced by children with ASN in main-stream education, I am keen to reflect further on the potential for digital technologies to be utilised in this area.
And on wider reflection…
In preparation for this week’s class on coding, I thought I’d familiarise myself with the ScratchJr. platform ahead of time. Except… Scratch Jr doesn’t function on either my laptop or my brand-new Android smartphone!
This is a perfect example of the sort of barrier to access which could be experienced by children both in schools and in the home environment. If technology is not accessible, for whatever reason, then children are at a direct disadvantage in developing essential skills identified by the Scottish Government as necessary for successful progression to employment. Having done my BA1 placement in a Scottish Attainment Challenge school I have seen the very children whose social needs have the greatest impact on their educational outcomes (OECD, 2007) and whose access to technology is the lowest.
“The Scottish Attainment Challenge is about achieving equity in education. This can be achieved by ensuring every child has the same opportunity to succeed, with a particular focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap.” Education Scotland (2019).
To access Scratch Jr. properly, I required a tablet. After much research and consideration of how my specific choice could be used to the best and desired effect during my time as a student teacher, I am now the owner of a Samsung Galaxy Tab S4… and I can access Scratch Jr.
I count myself particularly lucky to have been able to afford to buy a tablet to enhance my learning. It cost more than some families of Scottish Primary School children will have as their entire income for a month!
So, my thoughts after prep. are…
In order to provide equity in opportunity not only must technology be accessible to all children, but programmes should ideally be accessible across different platforms and across all operating systems.
Where are we currently on the journey?
So far, we’ve discovered that despite being apprehensive about using technology I am much keener when it involves a hands-on creative element. I am sceptical about the use of technology for technology’s sake and very much agree that the implementation of technology in education should be to enhance learning, making the learner an active participant rather than a passive observer. It’s also clear that I benefit from learning which is quick to engage with and encourages development and self-reflection. Having looked at programmable toys, multimodality and coding separately I was intrigued to find a resource aimed at the Early and First Level age group which combines all these…
Code-a-pillar
Code-a-pillar is constructed from a single head unit and interchangeable body units, each telling him to perform a different action. Rather than coding via a screen-based interface, the child performs exactly the same mental operations of planning and problem solving but is also interacting with both the resource and the environment physically. Very similar to the methods required in using Bee-Bot but without the need to retain the programmed steps mentally. Code-a-pillar also has an app which allows children to code using a process similar to that of Scratch Jr. but again a simplified version. The app also features basic literacy and numeracy elements combined and presented as an interactive game.
References
- Beauchamp, G. (2012) ICT in the Primary School: From Pedagogy to Practice. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
- Curtis, S. (2013) Teaching our children to code: a quiet revolution. The Telegraph. [Online] 4 November, non-paginated. Available: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10410036/Teaching-our-children-to-code-a-quiet-revolution.html [Accessed: 31 January 2019].
- Education Scotland (2019) Curriculum for Excellence. [Online] Available: https://education.gov.scot/Documents/All-experiencesoutcomes18.pdf [Accessed: 31 January 2019].
- Education Scotland (2019) Scottish Attainment Challenge. [Online] Available: https://education.gov.scot/improvement/learning-resources/Scottish%20Attainment%20Challenge [Accessed: 31 January 2019].
- Kerawalla, L and Crook, C. (2002) Children’s computer use at home and at school: context and continuity. British Educational Research Journal. Vol 28(6), pp.751-771.
- Naughton, J. (2012) Why all our kids should be taught how to code. The Guardian. [Online] 31 March, non-paginated. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/mar/31/why-kids-should-be-taught-code [Accessed: 31 January 2019].
- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007) Quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/reviewsofnationalpoliciesforeducationqualityandequityofschoolinginscotland.htm [31 January 2019].
- Scottish Government (2019) Pupil Attainment: Closing the Gap. [Online] Available: https://www.gov.scot/policies/schools/pupil-attainment/ [Accessed: 31 January 2019]
- Scottish Parliament (2016) Closing the Attainment Gap: What Can Schools Do? [Online] Available: http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S5/SB_16-68_Closing_The_Attainment_Gap_What_Can_Schools_Do.pdf [Accessed: 31 January 2019].
- Whitebread, D. (2006) Creativity, problem-solving and playful uses of technology: games and simulations in the early years. In: Hayes, M. and Whitebread, D. (eds) ICT in the Early Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
- World Government Summit (2016) Gamification and the Future of Education. [Online] Available: https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/api/publications/document?id=2b0d6ac4-e97c-6578-b2f8-ff0000a7ddb6 [Accessed: 31 January 2019].
