2 b)

Description

There are two distinct groups of learners which I support and whilst there may be some elements of crossover, students and teachers need treating differently. In both cases we conduct regular (three yearly) capability audits¹ to establish their current levels and attempt to identify any shortfalls we need to address. This also serves to bring to the attention of our learners any areas they feel may be weak, thereby empowering them to preemptively seek support in having those issues addressed. For teachers, this may be done through their Annual Review where they set targets for the forthcoming year; all teaching staff are encouraged to include one target related to learning technologies, so often at this point, they will take up the matter with me and we’ll discuss a route forward. This might involve one-to-one support, but more often feeds into the planning of our eLearning PD Programme for the following year.

In preparation for renewal of our ICT Mark status, I undertook an extensive review of the curriculum² across all year groups and subject areas. This revealed both areas of strength and areas where our learners were perhaps not being stretched as much as we would hope for. This information, together with that from the capability audits, was discussed at an ICT Development Group, then fed back to Heads of Departments where, following further discussion and with support, adjustments to curricula could be made where necessary.

Whilst devising and providing training aimed at supporting particular initiatives (e.g. introduction of iPad banks, transition to new learning platform, new departmental learning technologies and applications), the needs of teachers (and students) is solicited and made explicit. This increases the likelihood that the project will enjoy a successful outcome. For example each year when departments make their requests for new learning technologies from the central budget, one of the questions on the proforma³ is “Outline any training/professional development issues you will need to address.” This enables whatever needs a department might have regarding a new technology or application to be planned in advance.

In addition, it encourages staff to think about their needs when they are considering new approaches.

Both staff and student needs also surface through less formal channels; whilst in the staffroom, or talking with colleagues about completely different issues, learning technologies will crop up during conversation. This feedback may indeed be anecdotal, but forms another stream of information which can assist planning. Whilst providing support for students during open sessions in IT suites during lunchtimes, shortcomings in student capabilities can be identified and remedial actions put in place. When for example it became apparent that students incorporating images into documents and presentations were adjusting images by simply dragging the resize handles, resulting in excessively large file sizes, this was brought to the attention of the Head of ICT who appended a section on image manipulation into the ICT curriculum.

Reflection

Staff and student needs are closely intertwined. If there is a shortcoming in student capability that we need to address, then although that can sometimes be targeted by a specific curriculum area or individual teacher, more often we are all obliged to take on some degree of responsibility for resolving that. In the same way that we are all responsible for student literacy and numeracy, we too have to accept responsibility for helping to develop digital literacy. The consequence is that teachers may themselves need support because they too may not be sufficiently far enough along the digital literacy continuum to be able to provide that student support and guidance. This is of course in addition to any other aspects of eLearning professional development which need addressing. The solution we employ, demanding though it may be, is to draw together the information from the sources mentioned above and then provide as wide a range of opportunities as possible including optional one-to-one, targeted support; an annual programme of opt-in professional development; compulsory, whole school sessions on specific issues.

Since students in Senior school have a timetable and those in Junior school have their class teacher, we are able to respond to their issues in a much more direct way. For example, when it became clear that those students and mentors on the EPQ programme were struggling to manage the Production Log without creating multiple copies which out of step with one another, I created a Google doc template which could be copied and used to allow student, mentor and supervisor to work in the same document thereby maintaining a single, consistent record of progress. A single, brief introductory session was then included in the EPQ students’ induction programme to introduce them to the solution and this way of working.

¹The capability audits as live forms can be found here - student and staff, though the staff one has ‘Required’ responses, so you may not wish to proceed through it completely. A list of the questions can be found in this document (PDF below).

The results from these audits can be seen below, though only as thumbnail images because some of the detail therein may not be appropriate for a wider audience.

²The curriculum audit results for a single year group can be found in this report, again presented as thumbnails for the aforementioned reasons.

A more fulsome presentation was produced and formed the stimulus for discussion at a Senior Leadership Team meeting.

³The departmental request proforma which provides one additional avenue through which teachers can express their needs can be found here (PDF below).