 |
|
|
|
|
| Funding for ICT | Could you be an ICT winner? | Robot Wars? | Video Conferencing | Using Digitalbrain |
| DiDA Debugged | OCT Level 2 Nationals in IT | The Bird box Project | 2Stimulate |
Andrew Webster, Assistant headteacher at Matthew Arnold School, shares some thoughts on the DiDA course.
As we approach the first full cohort to complete the DiDA course at Matthew Arnold School, what have I learned? Quite a lot, not all of it directly related to ICT, but I hope these jottings will have some resonance with those of you who threw in their lot with DiDA from the beginning as well as those of you considering whether to take it up.
Pupils can submit 1, 2 or 4 units, worth 1, 2 or 4 GCSE grades. These can be at level 1 (D-G) or level 2 (A*-C). The requirements are laid down in Summative Project Briefs (SPBs for short - if you don't like jargon, DiDA isn't for you) published each year. As pupils work through the SPBs they gather evidence for their “e-portfolio”, a web site that displays the work they have done, with commentaries, for the examiner.
As a replacement for a GCSE course, DiDA has some advantages. Being all coursework it promises to give full credit to hard working students who, for one reason or another, do not perform well in exams. Indeed, in a sample submitted in November in order to get a feel for the moderation process, pupils in this category fared well compared with FFT-D predictions. However, for reasons that will become apparent later, top pupils did not fare so well.
Each SPB is published in two versions, one at level 1 and one at level 2. When starting work on the SPB you have to decide which to do. To be certificated at a particular level pupils need to have done the majority of their work towards the right level SPB. You may be thinking that this is just like tiers of entry for GCSE, but, not so. You need to decide entry at a very early stage. Moreover, students need to be guided through projects at level 1 and 2 that are similar, but not the same. This is beyond my powers, so I have stuck with one level per class.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the DiDA course is the freedom with which the exam board changes the rules. From the lifespan of individual SPBs and the allowed file types in an e-portfolio to the rules about which levels you can enter for using particular SPBs, you name it, the exam board has changed it. As late as three weeks before the summer entry deadline the rules were changed to allow pupils who had done the level 2 SPB to be submitted for moderation at level 1, a victory for common sense at least. The moral is, go to the DiDA web site straight away and sign up for e-mail updates. Quite apart from rule changes the look of the project briefs has developed over time and, I am pleased to say, the more recent SPBs are a lot more manageable than the earlier ones.
The SPBs originally claimed to take 30 hours to complete. This was always nonsense and was one of the first changes to the specifications. Note that this timing only ever related to completing the SPB, not to the teaching of the skills required. The initial Digital Applications unit in particular is of huge scope. Many of my year 11 students have taken 18 months to complete it. Those who have subsequently gone on to do the graphics unit found this infinitely more straightforward, taking a fraction of the time. Note that SPBs are published at the end of September (supposedly, note that EdExcel feels free to default on its own deadlines, I wonder if they will be as accommodating if I am late with exam entries or moderation samples?)
The exam board view is that students will work through SPBs independently, first creating a detailed time plan to identify where everything fits in. Of course, my students always start big projects by spending a few hours defining the requirements and allocating realistic times to each task, not forgetting to allow contingency time for unforeseen circumstances (don't yours?). In fact, pupils find it hard to make a plan taking into account how long things will take. 15 year olds just don't work like that (neither, for that matter, do I).
Throughout, students are required to respect copyright. Surely sensible? In my November sample I thought mine did a good job. Where they used copyright images they said so, noting that their use was fine for personal use (such as their coursework), but that if they were going to publish their work they would need to apply for permission. Big mistake. This limited my pupils to 4/9 in one strand. According to the exam board, their work not only needs to acknowledge copyright, but actually seek permission to use maps from streetmap, images from the BBC, etc. as if it were a real publication (just as, I am sure, your school newsletter wouldn't include anyone's logo, map or photo without explicit permission, would it?). Needless to say, none of my classes have had any reply from their subsequent requests for permission to use images in their work. The solution? Don't use copyright images at all and the problem doesn't arise. Daft!
The marking scheme seems straightforward, but actually turns on nuances of key words. Does this newsletter show some awareness of audience, sound awareness, astute awareness, etc? In the “walk throughs” published for some (but, frustratingly, not all) SPBs requirements seem to have crept in that are nowhere made explicit in the SPB.
Preparing the sample (10 students - you find out who after you enter the marks on Edexcel Online) for moderation is straightforward, if slightly time consuming (due to the rather arcane naming convention required). However, moderators’ reports are detailed and helpful. Mine highlighted some “hidden” requirements of the SPB that were causing my top students to lose marks as well as making clear the rather ridiculous copyright rules mentioned above. I also found out that sophisticated use of ICT doesn't help get marks on this course. Without a detailed discussion of who a piece of work is aimed at, what it must contain, why it is needed and where it fits into the project you won't get good marks. Similarly doing a poor first draft and getting someone to list all the improvements you need to make is vital. Without these nothing will get good marks.
One thing has surprised me over the two years of the course. Well-motivated students have been able to get ahead and complete two units while their less well-motivated peers have plodded through one. This has meant being able to concentrate the teaching where it is needed. My surprise is that this has worked well in the classroom with students working at different rates and even on different projects. I genuinely believe that my top students have benefited immensely from the challenges of doing the course.
Year 9 have worked towards a one-unit qualification this year too. Why? To give those who do not opt for ICT at KS4 the chance to gain certification and to make sure that we can start year 10 off doing something a little different from the diet offered in the Digital Applications module (more DTP, presentations, spreadsheet and database work). Lower ability students have struggled with some of the work, but no more than would have been the case otherwise. Middle sets have done really well with work at level 1, while upper sets have found level 2 work challenging.
The course has led to differentiation of classroom activity with much less whole class teaching. Able pupils have been able to forge ahead, but the rather pedantic view of the exam board shown in moderation leaves me with nagging doubts about DiDA as a course suitable for the more able. At the top end of the mark range I would rather be looking for sophisticated ICT skills than whether copyright would be infringed if the work were (hypothetically) to be published. It must be said the most recent SPBs seem to be much more approachable, but until I have submitted work to the exam board I will not know for sure that my interpretation is correct.
We hope that you find this and the following article written by two of our colleagues informative and thought provoking.
Do you have a particular subject about which you feel passionate and which others might find interesting?
If you feel that you could write a critical article about a current topical issue we would love to hear from you.
Contact Barbara Hitchcox or Tracy Tierney
(Secondary ICT Consultants)
01856 428034 or
email
tracy.tierney@oxfordshire.gov.uk
barbara.hitchcox@oxfordshire.gov.u.k
