ICT and Creativity in Education: Examining the Effect That New

Labour Policy Had on Creative ICT Practice, and Why This Practice is

Important

A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of

Master of Arts in the Faculty of Humanities

2011

James Dumolo Ralley

School of Arts, Histories and Cultures

2

LIST OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS, INITIALISMS, AND ACRONYMS ………………………………….. 3

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………............. 4

DECLARATION ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT ……………………………………………….. 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………….. 7

ICT AND CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION: EXAMINING THE EFFECT THAT

NEW LABOUR POLICY HAD ON CREATIVE ICT PRACTICE, AND WHY THIS

PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT ………………………………………………………………………. 8

New Labour and ICT ……………………………………………………………………………….. 13

New Labour's Education Policy …………………………………………………………. 13

New Labour's ICT Policy in Education ……………………………………………….. 15

The Creative Use of ICT …………………………………………………………………………… 22

What is ICT? …………………………………………………………………………………… 22

What is Creativity? …………………………………………………………….……………. 22

Why was Creativity Important for New Labour? ..………………………………. 24

What Place did ICT Have in the Creativity Agenda? ……..…………………….. 27

Case Studies of Creative ICT Practice ………………………………………………… 32

Engagement With ICT …………………………………………………………………………….. 39

Digital Natives ………………………………………………………………………………… 39

The Digital Divide and Digital Literacy ……………………………………………… 41

Their Space and the Third Space ………………………………………………………. 43

ICT and Education After New Labour ……………………………………………………….. 48

New Labour's Legacy ………………………………………………………………..…….. 48

The Coalition's Education Policy …………………………………………………….... 50

The Coalition's ICT Policy in Education ………………………………………........ 53

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 55

Summation …………………………………………………………………………………….. 55

Questions for Future Study ………………………………………………………………. 57

Final Remarks ………………………………………………………………………………… 58

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 60

FINAL WORD COUNT: 14,749

3

ABBREVIATIONS, INITIALISMS, AND ACRONYMS

ATP Approved Training Provider

Becta British Educational Communications and Technology Agency

BIS Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

CCE Creativity, Culture and Education

CPD Continuing Professional Development

CSFC Children, Schools and Families Committee

DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DfE Department for Education

DfEE Department for Education and Employment

EBac English Baccalaureate

ESRC The Economic and Social Research Council

GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education

ICT Information and Communication Technology

KS Key Stage

LEA Local Education Authority

NACCCE National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education

NCSL National College for School Leadership

nfer National Foundation for Educational Research

NGfL National Grid for Learning

NOF New Opportunities Fund

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Ofsted The Office for Standards in Education (now the Office for

Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills)

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

RSA Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and

Commerce

SATs National Curriculum assessments

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)

TED Technology Entertainment and Design

TDA Training and Development Agency for Schools

TTA Teacher Training Agency

4

ABSTRACT

As the value of traditional academic qualifications falls there is increased

pressure on schools and teachers to provide children with the knowledge and

skills that they will need to survive and prosper in the current and future

knowledge-based economy. In addition to this, the increasing ubiquity of

information and communication technologies (ICT) both inside schools and out,

means that there is extra pressure on teachers to harness this new technology to

improve teaching and learning. With this in mind the New Labour government

(1997-2010) set up the National Grid for Learning (NGfL) and the New

Opportunities Fund Continuing Professional Development scheme (NOF). These

costly initiatives aimed to increase the provision and use of ICT in schools, and

to ensure that the workforce of the future would be skilled, creative, and

intelligent. However, the government failed to take into account the complexities

of the education system, and the potential barriers to effective creative use of

ICT in schools. This dissertation explores how New Labour’s marketized

conception of education meant that the NGfL and NOF failed to harness the full

potential of creative ICT practice. It looks at why creativity was important for

New Labour, why the integration of ICT practice in schools is crucial, and why

creative teaching and creative learning are essential for the future development

of the education system. It ends with a look at the current Coalition

government’s ICT policy in education, and makes recommendations for areas of

future research.

5

DECLARATION

No portion of the work referred to in this dissertation has been submitted in

support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other

university or other institute of learning.

6

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT

i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or

schedules to this dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the

“Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to

use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.

ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard

or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs

and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where

appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has

entered into. This page must form part of any such copies made.

iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and

other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of

copyright works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables

(“Reproductions”), which may be described in this dissertation, may not be

owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual

Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use

without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual

Property and/or Reproductions.

iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure,

publication and commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any

Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is

available in the University IP Policy (see

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant

Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The

University Library’s regulations (see

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The

University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertations.

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Abi, Simon, and Esme for their patience, guidance, and support over

the last year. Thanks to Alex, Julian, Lorna, Paul, Ros, and Sunny for their

corrections and suggestions. Thanks to Mom and Dad, obviously. Thanks to

Jenny for putting up with me over the last few months. Thanks to Nils. Finally,

thanks to Tim for all of the above and everything else besides: I genuinely

wouldn’t and couldn’t have done any of this without you.

8

ICT and Creativity in Education: Examining the Effect That New

Labour Policy Had on Creative ICT Practice, and Why This Practice is

Important

The current education system, and the role that information and

communication technology (ICT) and creativity play within that system, was

shaped dramatically by the instrumental policy initiatives of the New Labour

government.1 This dissertation will look at the ways in which effective creative

ICT practice can form an important part of a good education system, and how

the policy agenda pursued by New Labour failed to harness its full potential. The

National Curriculum constitutes a large part of each individual school

curriculum dictating what teachers have to teach and what children have to

learn. ICT holds a key position at the heart of that National Curriculum, being

both a statutory subject in its own right and a cross-curricular requirement along

with literacy and numeracy. New Labour saw ICT in education as an important

area for development, and its changes in education policy led to the creation of

several large and costly initiatives that aimed to improve the provision and

integration of ICT in schools. These initiatives led to an increase in the use of

ICT in primary schools and a notable improvement in creative ICT practice.

Nevertheless, they have been widely criticized for failing to fully realise their

objectives, and for failing to properly exploit the perceived benefits of creative

ICT use. Researchers in educational technology Selwyn, Potter, and Cranmer

(2009) highlight some of these criticisms:

1 By New Labour I refer to the Labour government that was in power between 1997 and 2010, under the leaderships of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and which pursued a political project that was distinct from previous Labour governments and the current Labour party under Ed Miliband.

9

Closer inspection [of research data] shows many primary pupils’ actual

engagement with ICT to be often perfunctory and unspectacular –

especially within the school setting . . . Creative and collaborative uses of

so-called ‘Web 2.0’ applications were not prevalent either inside or

outside school, with passive consumption rather than active production

the dominant mode of engagement . . . primary schools need to be recast

as sites of ICT exploration rather than ICT restriction . . . there is a clear

need to enthuse children about learning, and about learning with ICTs.

(pp. 928-930)

Published 12 years after New Labour came to power, this report is highly critical

of the government’s ICT policies in education. The writers put forward the

argument that this set of large, expensive government initiatives fundamentally

failed to achieve their aims.

The educational theorist Ken Robinson (2010a; 2010b) holds the view

that the current education system is outdated and broken. He has radical and

idealistic theories about the need for a system-wide revolution in teaching and

learning, and a paradigmatic shift in the way education is viewed. Despite their

radical nature, Robinson’s ideas nevertheless provide an introduction to some of

the key criticisms of the education system that will be addressed below. It is

important to bear in mind that he is something of an evangelist for creativity in

education, and that his rhetoric should be viewed as such. Robinson’s (2010a)

talk at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and

Commerce (RSA) in 2009 called Changing Education Paradigms, lays out his

thesis. In short, he says that schools are failing to perform. He says that whilst

schools are attempting to prepare children for life in the 21st century, to ensure

that they contribute meaningfully to the economy, and to instil in them a sense

10

of rich personal identity, they are working within a fundamentally broken

system: “they’re trying to meet the future by doing what they did in the past, and

on the way they’re alienating millions of kids who don’t see any purpose in going

to school” (Robinson, 2010a). His argument centres on the idea that the

education system is still based on a set of old Industrial-era principles that hold

traditional academic abilities as the true goal of education, marginalizing

creative abilities and the majority of children in the process. For Robinson this

regressive model of education has proliferated a culture of standardization

throughout the entire system. Standard class sizes, rigid age boundaries,

conformity of behaviour and ideas, standardized testing, and the National

Curriculum are all products of this tightening, homogenizing trend in education.

Talking at the 2010 Technology Entertainment and Design (TED) conference

Robinson criticizes the idea that education “starts here, and you go through a

track, and if you do everything right, you will end up set for the rest of your life.”

(Robinson, 2010b) He says that “we are obsessed with getting people to college,

certain sorts of college . . . not everybody needs to go, and not everybody needs

to go now.” (Robinson, 2010b)

Robinson (2010a) criticizes the education system for creating schools that

are dull and uninspiring. He says that the world is becoming a more “intensely

stimulating” place, with the increasing ubiquity of “computers . . . iPhones . . .

advertising hoardings . . . hundreds of TV channels.” Yet schools penalize

children for being distracted in lessons: distracted from “Boring stuff, at school

for the most part.” (Robinson, 2010a) He thinks that schools need to be more

interesting, and that it is their responsibility to work harder to engage children.

He goes on to say that this dull environment stifles creativity, and reinforces the

pervasive idea that schools teach what is correct; that there is a transmission of

11

knowledge from teacher to child; that “there’s one answer, it’s at the back, and

don’t look. And don’t copy because that’s cheating.” (Robinson, 2010a) Robinson

(2010a) argues that ideas about information and knowledge are conceived

differently inside schools to out, and that outside school what they call

“cheating” is instead labelled, “collaboration”. For him there needs to be less

emphasis on immutable facts, and more time given to intellectual exploration

and creativity.

Creative ICT practice is not the panacea that will fix education; indeed,

education might not be as broken as Robinson suggests. But it is one of the tools

that teachers, educators, and policy makers can use to cater to different interests

and passions, to move away from a reliance on standardization and conformity,

to make teaching and learning interesting and engaging, and to develop

important creative thinking skills. Robinson (2010b) says that business,

multimedia, and Internet technologies “combined with the extraordinary talents

of teachers, provide an opportunity to revolutionise education.” This dissertation

will explore the reasons why this didn’t happen under New Labour, and what the

potential is for it happening in the future.

The first part will look at government education policy, specifically New

Labour’s ICT policy between 1997 and 2010. It will identify the ways in which

the government conceived of the importance of ICT, and provide a context for

the discussions in subsequent sections. The second part will explore the idea of

creative ICT practice and what impact it might have on teaching and learning,

through an examination of theory and case studies. The third part will examine

the relationship that children have with ICT, and what effect this might have on

teaching and learning. Finally, the fourth part will move from the past to look at

the present state of education, focusing on the legacies of thirteen years of New

12

Labour policy, and the current Coalition government policy and how it will affect

creative ICT practice in schools. It will end with a discussion of the challenges

facing the education system with specific reference to ICT and creativity, and

questions that the preceding discussion has brought up.

For the sake of focus the analysis will be restricted, as far as is possible, to

primary education in England. As a consequence of devolution, the Welsh,

Scottish, and Northern Irish education systems are significantly different, and

an analysis of these is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

13

New Labour and ICT

New Labour’s Education Policy.

Education was New Labour’s “number one priority” (Labour Party, ND).

For them it represented a synthesis between a sector that is state funded and

that controlled public institutions, and a sector dominated by the market driven

forces of neoliberalism. It was a clear expression of their politics of The Third

Way, which enabled New Labour to blend the traditional left-wing principles of

social democracy with right-wing neoliberal ideals. At its core the Third Way

rejected the idea of a political party imposing a system of beliefs and political

theories on the society that they govern, and instead took a more pragmatic

approach, reshaping its own policies around society itself (Stephens, 2001;

Steger & Roy, 2010). Under the guiding ethos of The Third Way, education and

the modernisation of the education system would provide Britain with a highly

skilled workforce able to compete in the global knowledge economy (Peters,

2001). At the Labour Party conference in 1997 Tony Blair (ND) said:

We know what makes a successful creative economy. Educate the people .

. . Our goal: to make Britain the best-educated and skilled country in the

world; a nation, not of a few talents, but of all the talents. And every single

part of our schools system must be modernised to achieve it.

In this speech Blair is advocating educational reform to improve economic

stability, and pushing for a new, economically driven education policy. The 1997

Excellence in Schools education White Paper was the first White Paper to be

released by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) under New

Labour. It talks about the need for progressive change and collective

responsibility, and the monitoring of standards that would drive this change.

14

National league tables would become a crucial indicator of each school’s overall

performance; schools would be more accountable to the wider public, with more

data being released so that parents can make informed choices about which

schools they send their children to. The Office for Standards in Education

(Ofsted) and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) had increased responsibilities

for monitoring and setting standards in schools, with LEAs directly overseeing

school development plans and Ofsted producing more quantitative data to make

national comparisons between schools (DfEE, 1997).

Under New Labour’s economically driven education policy, education was

marketized, and the role of the head teacher was transformed into that of a

manager. Social Policy commentator Nigel Wright describes how New Labour

wished to create a generation of head teachers who were strong, heroic leaders of

schools. There was a shift from wanting well-educated heads to wanting well-

trained heads. Wright (2001) notes:

While not denying the usefulness of training, the purpose of which is to

cope with the known, it is the apparent exclusion of the educational, the

purpose of which is to prepare for the unknown, which raises concerns . . .

Schools are part of the economic project which seeks greater productivity

in a ‘niche marketed’ high-wage, high-skill economy (p. 277).

He questions what impact this shift in culture is having on children: if most of

their school lives are focused on results and testing then “what is the scope for

intrinsic interest, amusement, relaxation or sheer curiosity? How well do our

schools foster these elements which should contribute to a learning society?”

(Wright, 2001, p. 278) He argues that increased focus on testing and standards

is leading to the commodification of education, and is creating commodities out

of children. There is added pressure on them to perform well in tests, partly

15

because the success of the teacher, head teacher, and school depends on these

good results (Wright, 2001; Helsby, 1999).

New Labour’s ICT Policy in Education

Teaching ICT is statutory between Key Stage (KS) 1 and KS42. At the end

of each stage children are assessed, either using level descriptions assigned by

teachers, or national tests and qualifications, like SATs and GCSEs. The ICT

curriculum sets out a programme of study that defines exactly what each child

has to learn during each of these stages (Qualifications and Curriculum

Authority (QCA), 1999). The progression in knowledge, skills and

understanding from KS1 to KS4 is linear and logical. Pupils move from basic

exploration and familiarisation with key software and hardware; to expanding

their research and presentation skills; to identifying the most effective uses of

ICT in a range of educational settings; to combining information from a variety

of sources and using a range of tools independently and effectively (QCA, 1999,

pp. 16-23). Like numeracy and literacy, the National Curriculum requires ICT to

be embedded in all other subject, except for physical education (Training and

Development Agency for Schools (TDA), ND). This puts added pressure on

teachers to ensure that all children have even the most basic set of ICT skills.

In 1997 New Labour had a vision for ICT in education. In the introduction

to the Excellence in Schools White Paper, Secretary of State for Education and

Employment David Blunkett set out his stall:

2 Key Stages are used to divide up the National Curriculum. From ages five to 11 children attend primary school, and progress through KS1 and KS2. From ages 11 to 16 children attend secondary school and progress through KS3 and KS4. (Directgov, ND)

16

In the last 20 years, business has been transformed by new technology,

particularly computers and communication networks. But education has

been affected only marginally. We cannot prepare our children for the

world of tomorrow with yesterday’s technologies (DfEE, 1997, p. 41).

New Labour emphasized the vocational potential of ICT. Their 1997 Manifesto

shows a key commitment to increasing the provision for ICT in schools, meaning

the amount of ICT in schools (Labour Party, ND). A manifestation of this

commitment is their promise to set up a National Grid for Learning (NGfL), with

the aim of connecting all schools to the Internet, training teachers how to use

new technologies to teach more effectively, giving children the ICT skills to

thrive in the modern workplace, and developing world-class education software

(Labour Party, ND). In this dissertation the NGfL, along with the National

Lottery Funded New Opportunities Fund (NOF) continuing professional

development (CPD) scheme, will serve as exemplars to represent New Labour’s

failure to harness the potential of creative ICT practice. It is important to note

that in addition to the NGfL and NOF, New Labour later introduced the

Harnessing Technology in Schools Strategy, the £250 million Laptops for

Teachers scheme, and the £3 billion Building Schools for the Future programme,

all of which increased the provision of ICT in schools to some degree (Cox,

2009). In addition to this, individual schools had to have specific ICT policies

and appoint ICT coordinators (Cox, 2009). The issues are many and complex,

and a discussion of initiatives other than the NGfL and NOF is outside the scope

of this dissertation.

The National Grid for Learning

The government gave £1.45 billion to the NGfL programme between 1998

and 2003, with the implementation being managed by the British Educational

17

Communications and Technology Agency (Becta)3 (Cox, 2009, p. 264). In a

confusing and constantly changing technological world the NGfL would facilitate

schools’ access to the hardware, software, and content necessary for “ensuring

that teachers feel confident and are competent to teach ICT”, that “school leavers

have a good understanding of ICT”, and that Britain becomes “a centre for

excellence in the development of networked software content” (Becta, 2001, p.

1).

In the introduction to New Labour’s NGfL White Paper, Connecting the

Learning Society, Tony Blair continued the modernizing rhetoric that is

indicative of Labour’s political programme. The NGfL was characterized as a

benevolent force that would guide users around a “wealth of content”, it would

give teachers “advice on effective ways of teaching”, and it would enhance

“standards, literacy, numeracy, [and] subject knowledge” (DfEE, 1997, p. ii). The

Grid would also integrate with New Labour’s flagship literacy and numeracy

strategies, providing an essential tool to meet their respective targets; it would

engage a range of private ICT companies who would compete to provide services

to all 32,000 schools in the country; and it would be supported by the

government’s “clear but flexible policy framework in which the Grid can

flourish.” (DfEE, 1997, p. 7) The NGfL represented “the biggest public-private

partnership in any education system anywhere in the world.” (Selwyn, 2000, p.

64) Consortia of private technology companies provided the range of complex

services that the Grid would require. Becta then kite-marked these services,

officially endorsing their suitability for use in schools, and then sold the services 3 “Becta [led] the national drive to inspire and lead the effective and innovative use of technology throughout learning.” (Becta, 2011) Until its abolition in 2011 by the Coalition government it was a quango funded by the DfEE that had responsibility for leadership, research, evaluation, independent advice, and provision of practical tools, regarding ICT in the education sector.

18

through a procurement framework to LEAs, who would then sell them on to

schools (Selwyn, 2000).

The NGfL fit into New Labour’s modernizing, marketized political project,

and its goal was to stimulate growth in the UK technology industry as much as it

was to raise academic standards and achievement. However, when the NGfL was

closed down in 2006, Andrew Pinder (2006) the Chairman of Becta said: “It is

felt generally that technology has underperformed in education . . . It does not

appear to have produced as much as it might have done.” Education studies

lecturer Sarah Younie (2006) says that this top-down method of implementation

from government to quango to schools is crude and ineffective. She says “it is

well known that change is either very slow or tends to fail. Implementation is a

complex procedure, not a direct translation from government policy to practice.”

(Younie, 2006, p. 385) Younie (2006) concedes that the NGfL facilitated an

increase in ICT resources and training for schools, and that some local education

authorities and schools did very well out of it, but concludes that ultimately it

was little more than a spectacularly expensive failure, and a prime example of a

government blundering into a situation that is little understood. It is seen to

have failed on five crucial levels: “insufficient leadership and expertise

coordinating the diverse and multiple agencies,4 disparities of funding between

schools and LEAs, differing levels of ICT provision in different areas, inequable

quality of training, and an overall limited impact on pedagogy.” (Younie, 2006,

p. 388)

4 These being: Ofsted, the DfEE, TTA, Becta, LEAs, the ICT supply industry, individual schools, the NOF, the DCMS, and the NCSL (see glossary for the meanings of these terms).

19

The New Opportunities Fund

Alongside the NGfL New Labour ran a £180 million scheme in England to

support CPD that was funded by the NOF. The scheme paid for a network of

private Approved Training Providers (ATPs) to teach teachers how to embed

creative ICT pedagogy into their teaching practice, and how to use the

technologies made accessible by the NGfL to teach more effectively, and make

learning more effective (Kirkwood, Parton, van der Kuyl, & Grant, 2000). Like

the NGfL the NOF was costly and relatively unsuccessful in achieving its original

aims. An evaluation by MirandaNet (2004) concluded that “the worthy intention

of raising pedagogical awareness has not been fully met” (p. 50). Instead of the

proposed focus on creative uses of technology, many ATPs ended up delivering

basic skills input sessions. The evaluation also found that “the effectiveness of

NOF was frequently undermined by a mismatch between the aims of the

programme and some teachers’ expectations and needs” (MirandaNet, 2004, p.

43). Many training sessions were ineffective because of a lack of basic ICT skills

amongst teachers.

After the NOF scheme ended in 2003, individual schools and LEAs took

sole responsibility for ICT CPD provision. A literature review of CPD in ICT for

teachers by Daly, Pachler, and Pelletier (2009) concluded that despite “the vast

majority of teachers receiving some form of ICT CPD”, the actual content and

effectiveness of that training was poor (p. 4). In contrast to this, a Becta (2009b)

report in the same year found that ICT was well integrated into both primary

and secondary schools, and especially primary, where “teachers’ use of

technology . . . is relatively mature compared to other sectors.” (p. 6) There is

however a significant distinction to be made between the quantity of teachers

that use ICT and the quality of that use and the effect that it has on teaching and

20

learning. Just as children’s use of ICT was assessed to be “often perfunctory and

unspectacular” (Selwyn, Potter, & Cranmer, 2009, p. 928) so is teachers’ use.

The review highlights the prevalence of “surface-level adoption”, having very

little effect on pedagogy (Daly, Pachler, & Pelletier, 2009, p. 6). Its

recommendations are for a move away from mass-adoption approaches of CPD

and development of skills, to fostering an individualized learning culture for

teachers; recognizing that teachers themselves are learners and professionals,

and not simply administrators who deliver the curriculum in whatever way is

demanded of them.

The ineffectiveness of ICT CPD training is indicative of the way in which

New Labour’s education policy agenda changed the role of teachers. Echoing

Ken Robinson’s criticisms that were examined in the introduction,

educationalists Reid, Brain, and Comerford Boys (2004) argue that there was a

significant shift towards “standardization and customization in teaching and

learning” (p. 262), which began with the Conservative Party in the late 1980s

and was continued by New Labour into the 2000s. The role of the teacher was

systematically de-professionalized; teachers no longer teach children, but lead

children’s learning, and deliver the National Curriculum. Under New Labour

teaching became “overloaded and complex”, and the education system became

focused on a “production-line delivery of governmental initiatives.” (Reid, Brain,

& Comerford Boys, 2004, p. 257) This over-prescription left little time for

effective CPD, and what CPD that did take place was inevitably based on new

strategies and National Curriculum standards:

The focus has not been on equipping teachers with the skills to engage in

professional self-development, to develop evidence-based practice, to run

educational teams, to innovate or facilitate, but rather to prepare a

21

generation of teachers as technicians, or deliverers of set strategies (Reid,

Brain, & Comerford Boys, 2004, p. 263).

John Furlong (2005) concurs, arguing that New Labour systematically phased

out and marginalized individualized CPD. He says that most CPD was “short

term, highly practical and focused almost entirely on helping teachers meet

government targets that it had set itself.” (Furlong, 2005, p. 129) Rather than

offering teachers the time, resources, and freedom to become better teachers, the

change in culture focused instead on training them to become better curriculum

leaders. Furlong (2005) suggests a return to professionalism in teaching, and a

renewed emphasis on CPD as a tool to improve pedagogy and practice, and not

simply to increase efficiency of delivery.

Summation

New Labour’s approach to education and ICT in education was a product

of their wider political project. The NGfL and NOF aimed to increase the

provision of ICT in schools, and to make teachers more effective at using that

technology, but this top-down method of governance did not work. The £1.6

billion investment schemes gave schools more ICT, but they did not facilitate a

system-wide shift in educational practice. Ken Robinson (2010a; 2010b) argues

that creativity and creative ICT practice are crucial to the reform and success of

the education system. The critics of New Labour suggest a need for a renewed

focus on pedagogy, more freedom in decision-making devolved down to

individual teachers, and a more flexible approach to ICT in general. The next

section examines creative ICT practice, identifying what it is, what effect it can

have on teaching and learning, and how it can be successfully implemented.

22

The Creative Use of ICT

What is ICT?

The initialism ICT was coined by the The Independent ICT in Schools

Commission (1997) in the Stevenson Report: an independent enquiry on the use

of technology in schools that was commissioned by New Labour. ICT is distinct

from IT (Information Technology) in that it includes communication, which was

inserted to “reflect the increasing role of both information and communication

technologies in all aspects of society” (The Independent ICT in Schools

Commission, 1997, p. 12). Fourteen years ago this meant personal computers

and laptops with wired connections to the Internet, basic mobile phones, and

creative digital media tools like stills cameras, video cameras, graphics tablets,

roamers, and more. Since then schools have made efforts to keep up to date with

the endless advance of technology. To varying degrees they have also seen

interactive whiteboards (IWBs), digital projectors, laptops, Wi-Fi, smartphones,

and tablet PCs become a part of daily life (Heppell, 2010).

What is Creativity?

The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education

(NACCCE) (1999) was set up by New Labour to investigate the place of creativity

and culture in compulsory education, “and to make proposals for principles,

policies and practice.” (p.2) Chaired by Ken Robinson, the NACCCE produced a

report, All Our Futures, which ultimately led to the creation of Creative

Partnerships5, the government’s flagship creativity in schools programme that

5 For more information on Creative Partnerships I suggest reading Sophie Ward’s (2010) PhD thesis, Understanding Creative Partnerships: An

23

ran between 2002 and 2011 and cost around £380 million (based on projections

from the first seven years) (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010, p. 23). The report

attempts to define the abstract concept of creativity by dividing it into four parts.

It defines it as “Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that

are both original and of value.” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 30) Creative processes

necessarily involve behaving and thinking imaginatively, positing alternative

solutions to problems, thinking around situations, and engaging in mental play.

They are a form of purposeful activity, an active, engaged application of

imagination to meet a particular goal. They involve the generation of something

original, which may be original in relation to the creator’s own experience, that

of her peer group, or just uniquely and historically original. Finally they must be

of some value, as defined in relation to the original objective of the process. For

a creative activity to be valuable it doesn’t have to produce something good, or

beautiful, or useful, or possess any other subjective quality; instead value is

assessed on an individual basis, and requires “judgement and criticism [and]

critical thinking” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 33).

The most important distinction in the NACCCE’s (1999) creative learning

theory that pertains to creative ICT practice is that between “teaching creatively

and teaching for creativity” (p. 102). Teaching creatively requires effort on the

part of the teacher to make routine activities fun, exciting, and engaging for

children. It is only once a teacher is teaching creatively that they can begin to

teach for creativity, and start to “develop young people’s own creative thinking

examination of policy and practice. It is a well-researched and comprehensive assessment of the scheme and the part it played in New Labour’s education policy. Covering similar ground to this dissertation, she argues that in the Creative Partnerships programme New Labour utilized the lofty rhetoric of the NACCCE report to mask its instrumental, economically-driven public policy agenda (Ward, 2010).

24

or behaviour” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 103). The NACCCE (1999) defines three key

areas in teaching for creativity. First is encouraging children to pursue their

creative interests, giving them the chance to act out those interests, and giving

them the confidence to try again when they have failed (NACCCE, 1999, p. 103).

Second is identifying where each child’s creative potential lies, be it in the arts,

sciences, or humanities (NACCCE, 1999, p. 103). Third is fostering creativity

through facilitating creativity, by teaching children that creativity is not

something you have or you don’t have, but that it is gained through a

development of skills and hard work (NACCCE, 1999, p. 104). Jeffrey and Craft

(2004) affirmed the validity of these three key areas in their analysis of the

relationship between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Their paper

draws on classroom-based observations, highlighting the importance of teaching

creatively, and concluding that “learners model themselves on their teachers’

approach . . . and are more likely to be innovative even if the teacher was not

overtly planning to teach for creativity.” (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004, p. 14) One of

their criticisms of the NACCCE is that it overstates the agency of the teacher in

an ideal creative pedagogy. Jeffrey and Craft argue in bold caps at the end of

their paper that a better distinction would be between creative teaching, which

is enacted by the teacher, and creative learning, which is enacted by the learner.

Why was Creativity Important for New Labour?

The NACCCE (1999) report quotes Tony Blair, David Blunkett, and

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Chris Smith, all expounding the

importance of creativity in education. They talk about how crucial creativity is

for developing a strong economy, and a well-rounded workforce. The report is a

direct response to the Excellence in Schools White Paper, and it argues, “A

25

national strategy for creative and cultural education is essential to [the process

of unlocking] the potential of every young person.” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 5)

Creativity, it says, is one of the “general functions of education” (NACCCE, 1999,

p. 6), and should be taught as a valuable educational tool instead of a separate

subject. It can facilitate learning and improve achievement, and demands a high

level of knowledge and skill. It is also crucial for developing a rounded and

progressive understanding of one’s own culture, indeed “the engine of cultural

change is the human capacity for creative thought and action.” (NACCCE, 1999,

p. 6) Most important is the idea that creativity is a widely applicable concept,

and “possible in all fields of human intelligence” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 43). Just as

artists and musicians are creative, so are scientists and mathematicians, and

economists and geographers. This push for creativity is based on the idea that

academic ability is just one of the indicators of ability and success. Achieving

greatness in a creative endeavour is no harder than achieving academic

greatness, but the education system places far less importance on it: the

NACCCE aims to redress the balance. (NACCCE, 1999, pp. 5 to 16)

The writers of the NACCCE (1999) report were sensitive to New Labour’s

political project and its emphasis on the economic imperative of education to

perform, and with this in mind they argue the case for creativity and creative

learning having a positive impact on the economic prospects of children, and

consequently the country (p. 18). With Ken Robinson leading them, the

committee argues that the current education system is based on an outdated

idea of what education should be, that was created in an old and very different

Industrial-era world (NACCCE, 1999, p. 16). England, along with many other

countries, is now dependent on the outputs of the knowledge economy, and on

intangible assets like “knowledge, skills and innovative potential” (The

26

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) quoted in Brinkley, 2006, p. 3)

are replacing “natural resources, physical capital and low skill labour”

(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as cited in

Brinkley, 2006, p. 4). Creativity, flexibility, adaptability, excellent

communication skills, and innovative working practices are all requirements of

the current and future workforce. The creative industries themselves are growing

steadily and will be run by creative individuals, but such skills will also be

necessary in more traditional trade-based positions (NACCCE, 1999, p. 19). The

first section of the NACCCE report is an attempt to quantify and rationalize the

abstract concepts of creativity and learning. It explains in clear terms why the

recommendations that the NACCCE make are important. The clearest example

of this explains the value of qualifications in the language of economics:

Qualifications are a form of currency. Their value is related to the

prevailing exchange rate for employment or higher education. Like all

currencies, they can inflate when there are too many in relation to the

opportunities available. Two or three A-levels once secured a university

place: the baseline for many courses is now much higher. A first degree

once guaranteed a job: the baseline is now a masters [sic] degree or even a

PhD (NACCCE, 1999, p. 21).

Couched in these terms, traditional academic qualifications are devalued, and it

is not just an old-style education that is essential for the sake of “Britain’s

economic prosperity” (DfEE, 1997, p. 9), but innovation and creativity also.

There is pressure on education to produce children who both succeed

academically and fulfil their individual creative potential.

27

What Place did ICT Have in the Creativity Agenda?

The creative potential of ICT was an essential component of the NACCCE

report. Alongside economic, social, and personal challenges, the relentless

advance in the complexity and ubiquity of technology was an important

challenge that the education system faced (NACCCE, 1999, p. 27). Access to

knowledge and information was changing, and free online sources meant that

schools no longer had a monopoly over them. Young people seemed naturally

more open and able to exploit the myriad possibilities of ICT. There were also

fears that too much time spent on computers would negatively impact children’s

social and cultural development (NACCCE, 1999, p. 22). These challenges would

be met by emphasizing the practical importance of ICT, and by encouraging

children to use them as “tools for creative achievement: rather than as ends in

themselves” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 62). Schools would also have a responsibility to

teach children “ways of engaging” with information and ideas, “of making

connections, of seeing principles and of relating them to their own experiences

and emerging sense of identity” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 62), in a world where access

to information is cheap and fast.

The Creative Learning Booklet (2008) comprises a set of provocation

papers exploring the various guises that creative learning can take. In this

booklet, ICT and education researcher Avril Loveless unpicks the complex

interplay between creativity and ICT in an education context. In agreement with

the NACCCE report she emphasizes ICT as a set of digital tools. These tools are

creatively useful when employed in the service of “active learning processes” and

“creative endeavour” (Loveless, 2008, p. 64). Creative ICT practice facilitates the

development of ideas, makes connections between separate or related spheres of

knowledge, makes meaning through different media, promotes collaboration

28

between peers for the construction of shared knowledge, and allows for easy

publication and communication of ideas (Loveless, 2008, p. 65). The major

barrier is to ensure that all of this potential is used to service pedagogy and the

curriculum (Loveless, 2008, p. 65). As with any tool, it takes time to develop

mastery over ICT, to properly grasp its creative potential and limitations, and to

recognize that despite the huge range of possibilities, digital technologies are not

inherently creative. Indeed Loveless (2008) notes how a lot of teaching with ICT

is relatively uncreative, “superficial and instrumental” (p. 66), as evidenced by

Pinder’s (2006) analysis of the NGfL. Loveless (2008) offers two types of

effective creative ICT-based pedagogy: improvisation, and skilful neglect (p.

68). The first relies on proper prior planning and preparation coupled with an

open approach to the actual teaching. Like jazz (her metaphor) the lesson

becomes a performance, still rooted in a strict practice and conforming to certain

unbreakable rules, but open to making improvised “conceptual connections” and

going off script (Loveless, 2008, p. 68). The second, skilful neglect is built

around “developing strategies for stepping back and offering a safe space for

learners to explore, make mistakes, and solve problems.” (Labett as cited in

Loveless, 2008, p. 68)

The idea of harnessing the creative potential of ICT is addressed by

Bridget Somekh and Richard Davies (1991). They paraphrase the educationalist

Michael Eraut:

The insertion of a computer rarely affects either the curriculum or normal

classroom practice: its use is assimilated to existing pedagogic

assumptions. Computers, of themselves, are not transforming (p. 153).

Although written in 1991 when ICT provision in schools was relatively limited

(McKinsey & Company, 1997, p. 10) this view in is line with both the NACCCE

29

and Loveless, with all three concluding that the creative use of ICT is only

effective if it is backed up with a purposeful pedagogy that allows for that

creativity. These theories lie in direct contrast to the rhetoric employed by Tony

Blair in the introduction to the NGfL White Paper. He imbues it with the power

to transform teaching and learning, claiming that “standards, literacy,

numeracy, subject knowledge – all will be enhanced by the Grid” (DfEE, 1997, p.

ii).

A literature review on ICT and pedagogy published by Becta (2003)

concluded that “the teacher’s own pedagogical beliefs and values play an

important part in shaping technology-mediated learning opportunities.” (p. 3)

Likewise a review of ICT and pedagogy amongst Flemish teachers found that

“teacher beliefs about the practice of teaching are a significant determinant in

explaining why teachers adopt computers in the classroom.” (Hermans,

Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008, p. 1506) It is clear therefore that the

effectiveness of ICT use will vary depending on the teacher, their personal

pedagogy, and their individual attitude towards ICT. A teacher with only basic

ICT skills and a more traditional pedagogy is far less likely to use ICT, whereas a

teacher with a passion for ICT will be keen to attempt to integrate creative ICT

practice wherever it is practically possible and beneficial.

In another study, Bridget Somekh (2000) ran an action research project

in the late 1980s that introduced teachers to laptops: then a relatively new and

rare technology for schools to possess. She maps out the three-stage learning

process that they underwent. First they viewed the technology as a teacher,

providing access to knowledge and learning materials that would ordinarily be

supplied by them. Second they viewed it as a neutral tool, enabling children to

perform the kinds of routine writing or drawing tasks that they usually perform,

30

but perhaps quicker or more easily. Finally, many of the teachers tapped into the

creative potential of the tech as a cognitive tool, and explored the ways in which

it could enable children “to take on new tasks that could not have been done in

the same way without technology.” (Somekh, 2000, p. 28) This higher-level

creative engagement with ICT is the last thing to arrive, and in Somekh’s case

came as a result of a formal action research project. This suggests that reaching

the point of using ICT as a creative cognitive tool would be harder still in a busy

classroom environment, without the guiding hand of an experienced action

researcher like Somekh.

Tondeur, Van Braak, and Valcke (2007) echo Somekh’s (2000) three-

stage progression theory in their typology of computer use in primary education.

They identify the main uses of computers in (Flemish) primary schools as: “‘the

use of computers as an information tool’, ‘the use of computers as a learning

tool’, and ‘learning basic computer skills’.” (Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007,

p. 197) They note that these three elements are often seen working in

conjunction in a single lesson, with teachers providing basic skills input which in

turn allows children to find information autonomously and engage in computer-

based learning.

Another study by Todd Lubart (2005), focuses specifically on ICT’s role in

the creative process and develops a typology of four categories: “computer as

nanny, computer as pen-pal, computer as coach and computer as colleague.” (p.

366) Whilst his paper does not refer specifically to ICT in education, the first

three categories are applicable to ICT in education and useful to our discussion.

Computer as nanny recalls the fostering element of teaching for creativity in the

NACCCE (1999) report. Here the computer is designed to facilitate creative

action in any way it can, by providing planning tools and the means to express

31

ideas visually or textually or any way that the user wishes. The better the

computer is, the more likely the users are “to express their creativity without

being slowed down by technology.” (Lubart, 2005, p. 366) This kind of work

happens in schools using IWBs to visualize information and support teachers in

their day-to-day practice, in video cameras and audio recorders to allow children

to explore ideas in different ways, and in many other creative educational tools

that aim to make the act of representing an abstract idea, easier. Computer as

pen-pal highlights the importance of communication, or spreading ideas out to a

wide audience and responding to their feedback. Here it acts as a facilitator

between multiple collaborators, and functions as the central node in a web of

creativity. Schools do this through the use of blogs, wikis, collaborative online

spreadsheets and text documents, VOIP6 services, and email. Computer as coach

provides expert information and training for users, which in turn enables their

creativity. This could be seen as a more formal and explicitly instructional tool

used to teach specific areas of the curriculum, or could be put to use more widely

in informal learning environments.7

Pedagogy varies between teachers, schools, local authorities, initial

teacher training (ITT) programmes, subjects, and generations. Some theorists

call for small classes and high levels of teacher involvement (Somekh, 2000) and

others talk about the benefits of huge super-classes with hundreds of children

learning simultaneously (Heppell, 2010). Many proponents of creative ICT

practice say that it should be fully embedded across the curriculum, and that its

6 VOIP, or voice over Internet protocol, enables audio communication between devices connected to the Internet. Popular services like Skype and Google Voice are free to use, and also have the facility to make video calls (Wikipedia contributors, 2011). 7 See http://www.khanacademy.org/ and http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/ for two effective examples of this.

32

use should vary depending on which subject is being taught (Becta, 2003, p. 8).

The situation then, is complex. The technology must be in place for teachers to

use, that technology must work consistently, teachers must be trained or know

how to use it, teachers must also be willing to use it, and there must be a clear

focus on effective pedagogy to ensure effective use. A Becta (2004) report on the

barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers reveals the lack of basic competence

and confidence in teachers. It suggests that “effective training is crucial” to

properly prepare teachers to use up to date technologies (Becta, 2004). This

training should be targeted to the hardware and software that the teachers have

available in their school. This report defines a huge range of barriers that

teachers face, and concludes that individual technologies and individual subjects

must be addressed separately, and that simply pushing for an increased use of

ICT and providing funding for new technologies (as the NGfL did) ignores the

complexities and barriers that can hamper its effective use (Becta, 2004, p. 24).

Case Studies of Creative ICT Practice

The theory behind creative learning in education has been established,

and the potential benefits of creative ICT practice and the barriers that exist to

its implementation have been looked at. These abstract ideas will be illustrated

below through a look at several case studies that reveal creative ICT practice,

with the aim of learning more about what actually happens in schools. The case

studies cover four different ICTs to highlight the differences between their uses:

digital video cameras, computer games, IWBs, and blogs and wikis.

Digital video cameras.

In October 2008 I co-founded The Big Art People (ND), a small company

that runs art projects and digital media workshops in schools and communities

33

countrywide. To date we have coordinated projects in over 100 schools, 60 of

which were primary schools. Between January 2009 and July 2011 I ran four

projects in three schools that focused exclusively on the use of digital video

cameras as creative tools. Three of the projects were funded through the Creative

Partnerships Change Schools programme (Creative Partnerships, ND), and one

was funded solely by the school. Below I make a brief assessment of the ways in

which digital video cameras were used, and discuss the issues that arose around

their effective integration into the classroom.

It is easy to create something with a digital video camera, you simply

press a button to start, press it again to stop, and you have made a film. But the

process for effective and meaningful use of the camera is more complex and

requires a complex set of competences. Indeed, as Becta (2006) say, “creative

work in this medium does not proceed from the use of the technology itself but

from awareness of the cultural properties of the medium, and from specific

pedagogic practice.” (p. 48) In using digital video cameras it is crucial to

understand what a film is, and how the camera is used as a creative tool.

Whether using them to make films on a specific curriculum topic, or filming a

script produced in a creative writing session, this creative activity requires the

use of ICT as a cognitive tool to approach learning in a new way. Both teachers

and children need time to explore this technology, to figure out its limitations

and creative possibilities. Returning to the NACCCE (1999) elements of

creativity, I would argue that teaching through filmmaking is excellent at getting

children to use their imaginations, it is well suited to creativity with a purpose,

often leads to the creation of original work, and facilitates work that children

and teachers find valuable. The technical requirements of teaching through film

are relatively high compared to using word processors or spreadsheets, and

34

demand familiarity with simple video cameras, editing software, and data

transferral, in addition to an awareness of the formal properties and aesthetics

of film, and good filmmaking practice. These skills are not difficult to acquire but

they do require patience and time, and demand a lot of creative input from the

user. In my experience this is what teachers struggle with most: having time to

put cameras to use for creative teaching, and giving the children the time and

freedom to develop their use as a tool for creative learning.

Computer games.

In the UK computer games are now more popular than films. In 2009

Britons spent £1.2 billion on cinema tickets, DVDs, and Blu-rays, but £1.7 billion

on computer games (Wallop, 2009). The creative use of commercial off-the-shelf

(COTS) computer games in schools has been happening for years, and sits

alongside the use of more traditional educational games produced specifically

for schools. Studies into their use highlight their “major role in increasing

motivation and engagement with learning, and in supporting the development of

collaboration, communication, thinking and ICT skills.” (Futurelab, 2006, p. 7)

COTS games have been embraced as a means to better and more creative

teaching (as discussed above), and Tim Rylands’ work with Myst is a perfect

example of this. He uses this open, free-roaming adventure game to engage KS2

children in literacy lessons, narrating the action and giving the students tasks

whilst he projects images from the game on the classroom’s IWB. The children

write stories around what they see on the screen, compare the world of the game

to literature they have read in class, and use it as a stimulus for creating music,

maps, and art (de Freitas, 2006, p. 29). Here Rylands is using ICT as a cognitive

tool. Through the medium of the computer game he is covering all four of the

NACCCE (1999) elements of creativity. He is using Myst to stimulate the

35

children’s imagination, moving on to develop purposeful activities, which have a

clear goal, allowing children to create original work, which is of clear and

demonstrable value. Rylands’ use of a game not originally designed for

education highlights the point that along with all types of ICT, “games need to be

embedded in practice effectively and in accordance with sound pedagogic

principles and design.” (de Freitas, 2006, p. 58)

Interactive whiteboards.

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are now completely ubiquitous in English

primary schools. A Becta (2007) survey found that 100% of schools had at least

one, and that the average school had eight (p. 35). Of the 60 primary schools

that I have worked in since 2008, I cannot recall a single one where IWBs were

not an integral part of each classroom. As stated above, simply having and using

the technology is relatively easy, but its effective use is far more of a challenge.

Somekh (2000) demonstrated that for truly creative use, practitioners have to

move from seeing the IWB as teacher, to using it as a neutral tool, and finally to

using it as a cognitive tool. Ruth Wood and Jean Ashfield (2008) look at the

application of IWBs in creative teaching and learning through a series of case

studies. They highlight the crucial difference between teaching creatively and

teaching for creativity that was established above, saying that many interesting

and creative uses of ICT may ultimately not engage children, but instead serve

only to reinforce a traditional “transmission-based method” (Wood & Ashfield,

2008, p. 93) of teaching. Instead the ICT must be fully integrated, and “optimise

opportunities to engage with the creative processes related to learning.” (Wood

& Ashfield, 2008, p. 88) This integration also makes demands of the technology,

as it must be flexible enough to be integrated. Wood and Ashfield (2008)

criticize IWB software that marginalizes teachers, reducing them to mere

36

intermediaries between the IWB and the children, and praise software that

enables teachers to create their own lesson plans and interactive games. The

more control that teachers have over the content of the material, the more easily

they can control the direction and shape of the lesson. This control makes it

easier to integrate the technology into their teaching practice, which could in

turn create opportunities for imaginative, purposeful, original, and valuable

creativity. Overall, IWBs offer a huge amount of potential for teachers willing to

engage with them for creative teaching practice, but they have to be willing.

Unlike digital video cameras, which are arguably a more explicitly creative

technology, IWBs can easily be used to reinforce “teachers’ established modes of

teaching” (Wood & Ashfield, 2008, p. 93), facilitating a kind of digital chalk-and-

talk approach. But for some teachers IWBs also facilitate and enhance more

creative teaching that in turn can facilitate creative learning.

Blogs and wikis.

Blogs have rapidly gained in popularity since the term was coined in 1997.

According to the blog tracker BlogPulse (ND), on Sunday 21st August 2011 there

were 168,689,982 blogs live on the Internet; 2,689 of these were indexed in the

last 24 hours; and 884,868 posts were posted in the last 24 hours. With free

services like Blogger, Wordpress, and Tumblr, blogs are simple to set up, easy to

maintain, and free; and services like Creative Blogs allow schools to set up and

host safe and secure blogs on their own servers. Following a similarly rapid rise

Wikis first came into being in 1995, and are a form of website “that allows the

creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser

using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor” (Wikipedia

37

contributors, 2011).8 Margaret Vass (2008) in her MA in Education dissertation

explores the creative use of blogs and wikis in primary schools.9 Starting with a

review of some key educational theorists she looks at the ways in which blogs

and wikis could impact on teaching practice. There is a strong emphasis on the

use of these online platforms as a constructivist pedagogical tool, and the ways

in which they can help facilitate personalized learning and social learning. Vass

(2008) highlights the potential risks in using this kind of social software

specifically in encouraging young children to openly publish their work on the

Internet, and be available for anyone to contact. She also touches on the

difficulties of evaluating such work, as it doesn’t fit into the traditional template

of curriculum success criteria.

The small-scale study that Vass (2008) ran in a Scottish primary school

revealed marked changes in the learning and teaching styles of the children and

teachers. She describes the process that participants went through:

When the study began, the distinction between the relatively casual

online teacher/pupil connections contrasted sharply with the more formal

offline classroom relationships. As the study period progressed, however,

there was a continuing merging of the two spaces. The new online

familiarity led to a greater awareness of pupil personal interests and

concerns. This resulted in offline discussions occurring and eventual

8 “‘What you see is what you get’ (or WYSIWYG) refers to the situation in which the display screen portrays an accurate rendition of the printed page.” (OED Online, 2011) 9 It must be noted that this study took place at a primary school in Scotland. The use of blogs and wikis in primary schools is a relatively recent practice and as such there are few published case studies or academic papers covering it. For more informal analyses in English schools see http://heathfieldcps.net/, http://ferrylane.net/, and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/blog-early-blog-often-the-secret-to-making-boys-write-properly-2211232.html

38

changes to the delivery and content of the familiar classroom curriculum

(Vass, 2008, p. 62).

This is another indication that the use of ICT underpinned by a clear pedagogy

can have an impact on learning. The children were given creative freedom

throughout much of the study, to edit and personalize their blogs and wikis in

any way they saw fit. They were encouraged to write as much as possible, and

used the blogs for “reflections, thoughts, short pieces of writings and uploading

pictures, and the wikis for more extended pieces of writing, such as imaginative

stories.” (Vass, 2008, p. 53) This is what Loveless (2008) would call skilful

neglect: giving the children a space in which to pursue their own interests and

passions, but also to read about the interests and passions of their peers. For

Vass (2008) this approach was ultimately useful in the offline formal classroom

environment, as she displayed the children’s work on the class IWB and used it

as a stimulus for discussion and more traditional teaching. This case study

demonstrates that blogs and wikis are an effective way of allowing children to

engage in creative practice that is imaginative, purposeful, original, and of value.

This limited review of case studies reveals similar findings to the review of

literature on creative ICT practice. Teachers can use technology to support

effective creative teaching and creative learning, but to do this they must also

have the time and freedom to embed the technology into their normal practice.

The type of technology used does not seem to matter as much as the ways in

which it is used.

39

Engagement With ICT

Digital Natives

It is seen by many as the responsibility of teachers to prepare children for

a life outside the protective bubble of education, and to equip them with the

tools and knowledge they will need to get a job and contribute to society. This

was one of the key drivers behind the NACCCE (1999) report, and similarly the

use of ICT is increasingly being seen as an essential component of a modern

creative education. This section will explore the ways in which children engage

with ICT, what kind of world they need to be prepared for, and the implications

that this might have on formal education.

One of the most widely cited theorists writing about ICT in education is

Marc Prensky. He coined the terms digital native and digital immigrant, as

models to define the different ways in which young people and adults interact

with technology. Prensky (2001) argues that the ubiquity of ICT and its

widespread use amongst young people has fundamentally changed the way they

think and learn (p. 1). Digital natives were born and grew up using computers,

digital technologies, and the Internet. As a result of this they think differently,

speak differently, and have a more highly developed and intuitive relationship

with technology. In contrast to this, digital immigrants were born and grew up

before the ICT revolution of the late-80s, 90s, and 00s. Their customs and

routines were developed in an analogue world, and they are characterized as

stuffy traditionalists who are reluctant to change and reluctant to accept the

potential pedagogical benefits of ICT (Prensky, 2001, p. 2). Prensky’s argument

is persuasive, and this binary construction is often cited in educational

literature, indeed Bayne and Ross (2007) say that it “pervades our discussions of

40

the challenges of teaching current generations of students” (p. 1). They call it a

“dangerous opposition” (Bayne & Ross, 2007, p. 1) that traps teachers in an

impossible paradox, characterizing them as fundamentally incapable of

developing the digital skills that digital natives possess, whilst simultaneously

demanding that they appropriate these skills to become better teachers. A

similarly damning analysis compares Prensky’s construction “to an academic

form of a ‘moral panic’” (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008, p. 775), in which

unsubstantiated claims take precedence and reduce the chance for good quality,

balanced debate.

In his comprehensive and balanced critique of Prensky’s theory, Neil

Selwyn (2009) systematically picks apart the concept of the digital native,

concluding that it is at best a discursive device, and at worst a misleading work

with a technological determinist agenda (p. 371). The picture is far more

complex, with class, socio-economic status, age, sex, and location all affecting

access to technology (Selwyn, 2009, p. 372). There is an increasing awareness of

a divide between users and non-users, and it is not a generational divide, as

Prensky asserts. Selwyn (2009) continues his reassessment of the digital natives

debate referring to studies claiming that children’s use of technology is relatively

basic, and they are for the most part engaged in “the passive consumption of

knowledge rather than the active creation of content” (p. 372): or a high quantity

of digital engagement in favour of high quality engagement. Selwyn (2009)

repeatedly states the importance of teachers and public institutions in the

learning process. He talks about the necessity of striking a balance between top-

down services provided by schools and funded by the government, and bottom-

up content creation through technology that is fuelled by children’s own

passions and interests (Selwyn, 2009, p. 374). Children need to be taught the

41

basic technical skills required for the functional use of computers, but their

“critical and creative abilities” (Selwyn, 2009, p. 374) must also be developed.

Above all Selwyn advocates caution when approaching any grand theories that

aim to define an entire generation. He concludes by saying that,

Adults should not feel threatened by younger generations’ engagements

with digital technologies, any more than young people should feel

constrained by the “pre-digital” structures of older generations (Selwyn,

2009, p. 376).

Perhaps a more open and inclusive approach to ICT in the classroom is needed.

One that takes into account the varied pedagogical expertise of each teacher, and

the unique ICT skills of each child.

The Digital Divide and Digital Literacy

Another grand theory affecting engagement with ICT is that of the digital

divide, which is commonly used to distinguish between those who have access to

new technologies and those who do not. Selwyn (2004) says that this theory has

been “promoted furiously” (p. 343) by educators, policy makers, and ICT

companies, but that it is often oversimplified in terms of access to digital

technologies. It is this oversimplification that makes the digital divide such a

“useful tool for mobilising political resources” (Grant, 2007, p. 1), and has led to

government policy like the NGfL which aimed to close the perceived divide by

providing “public and subsidized access to ICT for those social groups that are

otherwise lacking.” (Selwyn, 2004, p. 345) Selwyn’s (2004) first problem with

the concept is that digital or ICT can refer to any number of technologies, each

of which is used in different ways at differing costs by different people (p. 346).

His second problem is that the idea of access is not as simple as merely having

42

the hardware (Selwyn, 2004, p. 347). There is a hierarchy of access that takes

into account levels of provision, levels of proficiency, and the types of hardware

that are being used. Just as the use of ICT shouldn’t be confused with the

effective use of ICT, “it is important . . . not to conflate ‘access to ICT’ with ‘use of

ICT’” (Selwyn, 2004, p. 348). He proposes a more nuanced approach that takes

into account Bourdieu’s theory of economic, social, and cultural capital

(Bourdieu, 2008), and adds technological capital spanning the other three.

Possession of technological capital requires economic, cultural, and social

capital, and the successful adoption of these four forms “enables individuals to

become producers and distributors of their own cultural products, rather than

active or passive consumers of the products of others.” (Selwyn, 2004, p. 355)

Moving from passive consumption to active production is central to the

idea of digital literacy, and essential for the effective use of ICT by children as a

tool for creative learning. Hague and Williamson’s (2009) report for Futurelab

on digital literacy defines it as the ability to read and write digital texts10,

possessing the functional skills to use ICT, having the ability to critically evaluate

information from digital media sources, using ICT to acquire knowledge, and

“understanding how technologies and media can shape and influence the ways

in which schools subjects can be taught and learnt.” (p. 5) Digitally literate

teachers and children use a range of technologies in different ways to enhance

the ways that traditional subjects are taught, and they view digital literacy as a

route to improving teaching practice and learning methods using ICT, and

exploring the ways in which ICT is changing the subjects themselves. Becta’s

10 Texts are defined as all forms of digital media: text documents, websites, spreadsheets, photographs, films, audio files, games, etc. Reading involves the consumption of these media, and writing involves their creation and manipulation (Hague & Williamson, 2009, p. 5).

43

(2010) review of digital literacy covers similar ground to Futurelab, highlighting

the importance of a self-reflective and critical awareness of the affordances of

ICT, especially when using the Internet. The report says that “not all learners are

equipped with the skills, knowledge and understanding that will enable them to

critically engage with technology and use it effectively” (Becta, 2010, p. 5), but

that it is the responsibility of schools to teach these. Digital literacy should lie

behind all of the creative ICT practice that was demonstrated in the previous

section. In the same way that traditional literacy enables people to express

themselves, discern between useless and useful information, and operate

effectively in the world; so digital literacy enables expression through ICT and

digital media, it enables people to assess the validity of the information that they

receive through search engines, the TV, and other digital sources, and it allows

them to operate effectively in an increasingly digital world (Becta, 2010).

Their Space and the Third Space

The NACCCE (1999) report argued that creativity was an essential

element of education because it gave children some of the skills that they needed

to contribute to the knowledge economy. The DEMOS report Their Space by

Green and Hannon (2007) presents a similar economic justification for the

importance of digital literacy. It is a comprehensive study of young people’s

engagement with digital technologies and the effect that this has on their

learning. The conclusions that it draws reaffirm many of the theories that have

been looked at up to now, and the recommendations that it makes will prove

useful in the final discussion. Like the NACCCE (1999) report, Green and

Hannon (2007) are driven by a belief in the importance of equipping children

with the skills and tools that they will need to compete in the knowledge

44

economy. Just as creativity was presented by the NACCCE (1999) as one way in

which the government could build a stronger, more effective workforce to

increase economic stability, so ICT, digital literacy, and the creative potential of

these is presented in a similar way here. Modern employers demand “creativity,

communication, presentation skills and team-building” (Green & Hannon, 2007,

p. 15). In the future there will be more use of technology and more demand for

creativity, hence the pressing need to make provision for both in schools. The

report focuses largely on creative learning, on teaching children the skills they

need to think creatively and use ICT creatively, but there is also importance

placed on creative teaching and how teachers can use ICT to engage and inspire

children.

As the above discussion of digital literacy showed, children have

“completely normalised” (Green & Hannon, 2007, p. 10) the use of ICT. They use

it for communication, to maintain existing social networks, to access

information, and to browse online content. Yet their critical use of these tools is

often very poor, and it is the responsibility of schools to provide children with

these higher-level filtering and processing skills. According to Green and

Hannon (2007), government investment in ICT hardware has had very little

effect on teaching and learning practice:

While this type of investment is important . . . it has not had the impact

on teaching and learning that we might expect. The standard model of

teaching with 30 children in a classroom with a teacher at the front

remains the same. This is because fundamental behaviours have not

changed. The potential of new technologies will be realised only if the

relationships and behaviours that underpin the school structure also

change (p. 54).

45

They argue that schools need to fundamentally change the way that they operate,

as evidenced by Ken Robinson (2010a; 2010b), the NACCCE (1999), Avril

Loveless (2008), Bridget Somekh (2000), and the case studies above. There

needs to be more emphasis on the interests and passions of the children in ICT

practice, akin to the idea in the NACCCE (1999) report of encouraging as a key

feature of teaching for creativity. Starting with what the children are interested

in will better engage them in the learning process, and make the learning more

effective. The creativity that emerges from this should be a “purposeful

creativity” (Green & Hannon, 2007, p. 53), following on from the four facets of

creativity advocated by the NACCCE (1999): imagination, purpose, originality,

and value (p. 30). Green and Hannon (2007) talk about opening up a third space

between home and school, or informal and formal learning environments; about

bridging the gap between what children learn at home, through games, online,

on social media, and on mobile phones, and what they learn at school (p. 60).

Daly, Pachler, and Pelletier (2009) in their literature review on CPD in ICT,

make a similar point to this: “ICT CPD,” they say, “needs to involve recognizing

the permeable boundaries between school and the rest of the world” (p. 81).

Teachers should look at extending formal learning outside of the classroom, and

to welcoming informal learning into the classroom.11

Green and Hannon (2007) say that access to knowledge has

fundamentally changed, and “the skills of memorizing and recalling which are so

11 This idea of extending formal learning outside of the classroom is potentially complicated by concerns about e-safety. A full assessment of this idea is outside the scope of this dissertation, but it concerns the ways in which children “are vulnerable and may expose themselves to danger” (Becta, 2005, p. 4) on the Internet. Many schools employ a policy of restriction, blocking children’s access to certain sites. But there is an increasing emphasis on the need to teach children how to avoid these dangers, as part of a wider drive towards digital literacy. (Becta, 2005)

46

integral to the assessment system as it stands today will be considered far less

relevant for the employee of the future.” (p. 65) Assessment, learning, and

teaching methods need to change in line with current professional working

practices, and teacher training and CPD needs to change to incorporate more

creative teaching through ICT, which can in turn encourage creative learning in

children.

Engagement with information and the manipulation of that information

has also changed. In his recent TED Talk, mathematician Conrad Wolfram

(2010) looked at computers in maths education. The conclusions that he draws

easily translate across to other school subjects. He says that maths education

focuses disproportionately on computation, on the routine mechanical element

of maths. When in fact maths is really about posing questions, taking problems

from the real world and abstracting them into mathematical formulations, doing

computations to solve these formulations, then making the results concrete by

bringing them back into the real world. The computation is the laborious part,

and also the part that computers do better than any human. Yet “in math [sic]

education, we’re spending about perhaps 80% of the time teaching people to do

step three by hand.” (Wolfram, 2010) He says that children should be taught

about the real world applications for maths, and the essential part it plays in the

fields of geology, engineering, biology, computing, sociology, design, etc. This is

the way that schools and teachers should approach the use of ICT. It enables

things to be done faster, better, easier, with more people, across larger distances,

in less time, all relatively easily. Making a similar point, Bridget Somekh (2000)

says that ICT allows teachers to “shift the balance of students' activities from

laborious tasks to higher level tasks” (p. 29). Used in this way ICT can facilitate

more interesting and creative enquiries, allow children to deal with more

47

complex subjects at an earlier stage, and prepare them for the increasingly

complex demands of the future.

Summation

In the conclusion to Their Space Green and Hannon (2007) neatly

encapsulate the relationship between ICT, teaching practice, and government

policy:

Although this report has looked at some exemplary schools working in

innovative ways, they are doing so despite the system. Part of the

response to address this is undoubtedly about developing the national

curriculum to give more emphasis to creativity and innovation, but

curriculum and assessment are only one part of the puzzle…we need a

strong national agenda that supports and enables schools to make change

on their own terms (pp. 63 & 64).

Like Ken Robinson (2010a; 2010b), they argue for a radical change in public

policy that will facilitate a change in teaching and learning practice. Creative ICT

practice will be effectively used and integrated when teachers and schools are

given the freedom to explore the ways in which it can impact and enhance their

pedagogy.

48

ICT and Education After New Labour

New Labour’s Legacy

In New Labour’s final year in office there were two reports released

reviewing the primary National Curriculum. First was the Rose Review, which

drew many of its recommendations from models of best practice observed by

former Director of Ofsted Jim Rose and his team. It proposed a move from a

subject-based approach to an emphasis on six key areas of learning, with

literacy, numeracy, and ICT as cross-curricular subjects forming the

curriculum’s core (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF),

2009). Becta was to play an important role in its implementation, providing

support to the DCSF, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), and

individual LEAs, schools, and teachers on how to better integrate effective ICT

practices (DCSF, 2009). Accordingly, Becta’s (2009a) contribution to the Rose

Review consultation follows a familiar path, arguing that basic minimum

standards of ICT competence are essential in preparing children for an

unpredictable and increasingly technologically advanced world. They state, “By

the end of Key Stage 2 learners should . . . be independent and confident users of

technology for learning.” (Becta, 2009a, p. 4) They stress the important balance

that needs to be struck between “rigorously developing universal digital literacy”

and “the need to give teachers and institutions appropriate autonomy and

flexibility.” (Becta, 2009a, p. 10) The curriculum, they say, has to make room

“for the new, the unexpected, and the creative.” (Becta, 2009a, p. 7) ICT must be

used appropriately and backed up with a clear pedagogical purpose. There must

be an emphasis on personalized and collaborative learning, alongside a

49

standardized set of baseline competences that all children must leave school

with.

The second key document was the Children, Schools and Families

Committee’s (CSFC) report on the National Curriculum (2009), which

contextualized the current curriculum in terms of its 20-year history and made

recommendations for its future. Its overarching message was that the National

Curriculum should prescribe only the minimum entitlement for each child, and

that the current system is unnecessarily over prescriptive and takes up most of

teachers’ available teaching time (CSFC, 2009, p. 3). Marc Prensky (2011) takes

up this point in his essay on regressive educational reform. He is writing in a

USA educational context, but his points are just as applicable to the UK. “Our

curricula,” he says “are overstuffed, the new curriculum must begin with

deletion.” (Prensky, 2011, p. 8) Just as Conrad Wolfram (2010) called for a

complete reassessment of maths education, so Prensky (2011) calls for a rethink

of the entire education system. Providing children with a broad and balanced

education is absolutely the right thing to do, but breadth and balance should be

defined in individual terms, as a product of each learner’s own particular

interests. Neither Prensky nor Wolfram are denying the validity of one area of

study over another, they are pointing out that that “[forcing] the entire

population to learn a subject like ancient Greek . . . isn’t warranted” (Wolfram,

2010), that certain subjects belong “on the reference shelf, . . . for retrieval only

when and if needed by particular students.” (Prensky, 2011, p. 8) The CSFC

(2009) recommend that just half of the school day be given over to the National

Curriculum. They also wanted to further professionalize the role of teachers,

giving them more freedom to harness their “professional expertise”, and

50

ensuring that teacher training is focused less on “monitoring and compliance”

and more on creating a better generation of educators (CSFC, 2009, p. 4).

New Labour approved the recommendations of the Rose Review and laid

plans to roll out a new primary curriculum in September 2011 as part of the 2010

Children, Schools and Families Bill (Baker, 2010). But the Bill went through

without the proposed curriculum reforms due to vehement opposition from the

Conservative party; and on coming into power in May 2010 the Conservatives

(forming part of the Coalition government) abandoned the recommendations of

the Rose Review altogether, instigating their own review of the National

Curriculum (Baker, 2010).12

The Coalition’s Education Policy

Given that the Coalition is only 15 months old it is relatively early to

attempt a comprehensive assessment of its political project. However, Kerr,

Byrne and Foster (2011) argue that it represents a synthesis between the neo-

liberal ideals of Thatcherism and the Third Way politics of New Labour. They

broadly characterize the Coalition as pursuing policies that aim to decrease the

size of central government, empower the individual, and modernize public

services (Kerr, Byrne, & Foster, 2011, p. 199). They also see a general trend

towards a de-politicization of certain areas of the public sector, with powers

being devolved down from central government to arms-length bodies and

private companies, and a greater emphasis being placed on the self-regulation of

society (Kerr, Byrne, & Foster, 2011, p. 201).

12 For clarity, and in line with traditional naming conventions the Coalition review of the National Curriculum will be referred to as the Oates Review, after the chair of the committee, Tim Oates.

51

Just as it was for New Labour, education is a high priority for the

Coalition; and just as it did with New Labour, the Coalition’s education policy

reflects its wider political project. The rebranded Department for Education

(DfE) under the leadership of Michael Gove aims to continue the work of New

Labour in some areas, and radically change policy in others. New Labour’s

marketized conception of education emphasized the importance of giving

children the skills and knowledge to compete in a global knowledge-based

economy. Gove retains this global view but reframes the argument to focus on

the perceived differences between education systems. It is not enough for

England to simply have a good education system; it must be one of the best in

the world. Cameron and Clegg say in the foreword to the first DfE (2010) White

Paper, The Importance of Teaching, that “what really matters is how we’re doing

compared with our international competitors.” (p. 3). Despite the fact that GCSE

pass rates rose consistently for 15 years under New Labour (Vasagar, 2011), Gove

and the Coalition leadership continually cite worrying findings from the OECD

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, claiming that

the UK “plummeted from fourth to sixteenth place in science, and from eighth to

twenty-eighth in mathematics”13 (DfE, 2011c) between 2000 and 2009. Gove

13 “Developed by the OECD, PISA is an internationally standardised assessment that was jointly developed by participating economies and administered to 15-year-olds in schools.” (OECD, ND) The use of PISA rankings to justify public policy has been widely criticized (Heppell, ND). Such rankings are generally quoted without due attention being paid to their statistical significance, and they are often simply quoted wrong. English results from 2006 and 2009 are the only ones that meet the OECD’s response-rate standards. Based on the most reliable figures and taking statistical significance into account, instead of falling from 4th to 16th place in science, England actually fell from 7th to 10th place; and in mathematics, instead of falling from 8th to 28th place, England fell from 18th to 20th place. In addition to this, an important reason for the fall in science and mathematics was that two of the top countries in 2009 did not participate in 2006. In contrast to the Coalition’s claims, the OECD concluded that England’s

52

sees an improvement in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

(STEM) fields as crucial to England’s international success. In a talk to the Royal

Academy he said that without a radical improvement and reform in STEM

education “the grim arithmetic of globalisation will leave us all poorer.” (DfE,

2011c) The advancement of other nations and the relative decline of our own

innovative output demands curriculum reform, reform of testing, improved and

modernized teaching methods, and a better “ecosystem” for disseminating ideas

and best practice through the education system (DfE, 2011c).

Accountability is another similarity between New Labour and the

Coalition education agendas. Gove advocates the use of performance tables,

agreeing with New Labour that they are an effective way to monitor an

individual school’s progress, and the performance of that school in relation to

others. However, he also wants to change the kind of data that go into these

tables, making sure that the results “count”; narrow the scope of Ofsted

inspections to focus on the quality of teaching; and make schools more

transparent by publishing financial information in the public domain (DfE,

2010, pp. 12-13).

Gove’s plan for education aims to fix some of the mistakes that New

Labour made. He wants to re-professionalize the role of teachers, giving them

the opportunity to learn from each other and develop their own practice without

the burden of so much bureaucracy (DfE, 2011b). He has already removed the

non-statutory elements of the National Curriculum from the DfE website, and

has commissioned the Oates Review with the aim of creating a new “slimmed

down” (DfE, 2011b) National Curriculum. This new National Curriculum will

scores have been stable (Bradshaw, Ager, Burge, & Wheater, 2009; Bradshaw, Sturman, Vappula, Ager, & Wheater, 2006).

53

demand less of teachers’ time whilst maintaining a minimum standard of

attainment that all children will be expected to achieve.

Gove has proposed no instrumental and costly schemes like the NGfL or

NOF as yet. In fact, as well as abandoning the recommendations of the Rose

Review the government reduced the amount of quangos and funded

programmes, abolishing Becta (DfE, 2011d), and cutting all of the funding for

the Creative Partnerships (2010) programme. Instead, having learnt

“systematically from the most effective and fastest improving school systems in

the world” (DfE, 2010, p. 15) he has given all schools the opportunity to become

Academies, given parents and teachers the chance to set up Free Schools, and

introduced the English Baccalaureate (EBac) performance measure to monitor

GCSE performance in a narrow range of subjects (DfE, 2010).

The Coalition’s ICT Policy in Education

In contrast to the rhetoric employed by New Labour on the importance of

creativity and ICT in education there is no mention of either in the DfE (2010)

White Paper. Whilst freeing teachers from the tyranny of an overstuffed

National Curriculum, Gove is simultaneously pursuing an education policy that

emphasizes traditional academic achievement. He believes that “making it” to

Oxbridge is, and should be the ultimate goal of every student (DfE, 2010, p. 6).

In short, the Coalition’s vision for ICT and creativity in schools is relatively

unknown. Until the Oates Review publishes its first draft programmes of study

later this year there will be no indication of what the statutory requirements for

ICT will be, and what importance it will place on creative teaching and creative

learning. Furthermore, the new National Curriculum will not become a

compulsory requirement until September 2014, leaving teachers with New

54

Labour’s old system for another three years (DfE, 2011a). The current situation

is clearly complex, and the position of ICT, creativity, and creative ICT practice

in education from a policy perspective is uncertain.

55

Conclusion

Summation

New Labour’s education policies formed an integral part of their wider

political project, which focused on modernization and economic prosperity in a

global marketplace. The aim was to redesign the education system so that it

produced an academically qualified, ICT literate, highly skilled, and creative

workforce. This led to a series of instrumental policy initiatives, like the NGfL

and NOF, which provided new technologies and training to improve teaching

practice and facilitate new and exciting ways of delivering the National

Curriculum. However, under New Labour’s marketized education system there

were increasingly larger demands placed on targets and standards, which led to

a de-professionalization of the role of the teacher, and a marginalization of

creativity. Restricted by the burdens of the National Curriculum many teachers

did not have the time or support to explore the ways in which creative ICT

practice could be integrated into their teaching. After 13 years of New Labour,

this generation of teachers and children makes perfunctory and unspectacular

(Selwyn, Potter, & Cranmer, 2009, p. 928) use of ICT in school.

Creative ICT practice is demonstrably good when underpinned by a clear

and effective pedagogy. Its use in creative teaching can engage children, inspire

teachers, and transform learning. Its use in creative learning can allow children

to pursue their own interests in a formal learning environment, and facilitate

collaboration and cooperation. Schools have a responsibility to ensure that

children have a basic grasp of ICT. But most children already have, or have little

difficulty in learning, these skills. Schools need to be allowed to concentrate on

developing digital literacy in children, because the critical and creative abilities

56

that they will learn through this will be useful no matter what types of ICT they

encounter in the future.

It is the economic benefits of creativity and ICT that were important to

New Labour, and that recur in policy documents, reports, and articles. There is

recognition that as more people become better qualified and academic

qualifications become devalued, employers demand high levels of creativity and

innovation in graduates, and that it is ICT that will help to meet that demand.

Ken Robinson (2010a; 2010b) says that we need a paradigm shift in

education. He wants to move past prescriptive curricula, linear progression, and

standardization, to focus on developing creative teachers and bright children. He

wants to harness the creative potential of every child, and reimagine schools as

spaces where children are encouraged to pursue their interests under the

guidance of skilled educational professionals. As stated in the introduction these

theories are radical and idealistic, and even if Robinson is right, it is highly

unlikely that such a paradigm shift is going to take place under the Coalition

government. Indeed the future of creative ICT practice in education is unsure,

with little mention of it in the latest policy documents and a general trend

towards favouring more traditional academic subjects.

There is a continuing need for research and development into the creative

potential of ICT, and how it can improve teaching and learning. The NGfL and

NOF demonstrated the relative failure of system-wide top-down policy, and

there is compelling evidence that individuated, bottom-up initiatives can be very

effective.14 With this in mind, the final paragraphs will pose several questions,

14 Two notable emergent bottom-up initiatives are TeachMeet and #ukedchat. The former is the term used for a type of informal, teacher-organized conference that takes place in schools across the country, aiming to get “teachers sharing

57

and identify the areas that require further research and more in-depth

examination.

Questions for Future Study

What do children need to know? There clearly needs to be a basic

minimum level of ICT provision in schools, and children need to leave the

education system with a basic set of competences. But the benchmarks for

competency are changing and the cumbersome National Curriculum simply

can’t keep up with the speed of technological change. What are the universal

skills that children should learn and develop that will be widely applicable and

useful for their future development as professionals, citizens, and creative

people?

What effect will Coalition policy have on creative ICT practice in the

education system? The slimmed-down curriculum will hopefully give teachers

who are interested in ICT the chance to develop innovative and creative teaching

methods, and to focus more on the pedagogy underpinning them. Free Schools

and Academies will also give greater freedoms to head teachers and teachers,

again allowing them to pursue more creative curricula that embed ICT practice

across all subjects. A re-professionalization of teaching will hopefully provide a

structure for a more personalized development of pedagogy, and facilitate the

dissemination of best practice throughout formal and informal networks of

schools and teachers. Gove says that the DfE can enable innovations in

education if it doesn’t “seek to micromanage them” (DfE, 2011). How can

teachers work with the changes in the education system to address the issues

ideas with teachers” (TeachMeet, ND). The latter is a weekly, hour-long, open, Twitter-based CPD discussion (#ukedchat, ND).

58

that have been raised in this dissertation? How can they make it more

interesting, more engaging, more open and collaborative, and less linear? What

will drive teachers to improve their ICT practice now that Becta has been

abolished?

How can the benefits of creative ICT practice and creativity be proven? If

the government continues to emphasize the economic and vocational

imperatives of education, then proponents of ICT and creativity should aim to

prove how they can contribute to economic prosperity, instead of rejecting this

marketized view of education outright. The beguiling appeal of standardized

testing is that it reduces the totality of each child’s knowledge, skills, experience,

and understanding to a series of quantitative data points. It produces clear

indications of improvement or decline that can be used at local, regional,

national, and international levels. What needs to be measured to show the

impacts of creative ICT practice? How can such practice be shown to be of equal

or greater value to the economy than standardized testing and examinations?

Final Remarks

I will end with two key conclusions that the work on this dissertation has

led me to, and that I think are important to bear in mind for any future

investigation.

First is that the education system, and the idea of education is hugely

complex. It is a mistake to reduce this complexity down and view education as a

thing that can be fixed, through a change of policy, or a new technology, or any

single measure.

Second is that the process of change is incremental and iterative. Ken

Robinson says that we need “a revolution in education” and not “evolution”

59

(Robinson, 2010a). I would argue that we need to stop talking about revolution,

and concentrate on better evolution. There is no Platonic Form of education that

we should seek to replicate. New policies build on old policies, pedagogies

gradually change, and the demands placed on individuals by society shift over

time. I think that we need to take practical steps to bring about incremental

change to make education as good as it can be now; and I think that the creative

use of ICT is just one of the tools we should employ in doing that.

60

REFERENCES

#ukedchat. (ND). #ukedchat. Retrieved 08 30, 2011, from #ukedchat Information Wiki

Site: http://ukedchat.wikispaces.com/

Baker, M. (2010, 07 20). Policy changes in education speed ahead. Retrieved 08 28,

2011, from Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/20/education-policy-changes

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The 'digital native' and 'digital immigrant': a dangerous

opposition. Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher

Education (SRHE). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Becta. (2001). National Grid for Learning (NGfL). Coventry: Becta.

Becta. (2003). ICT and pedagogy: A review of the research literature. London: DfES.

Becta. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by

teachers. Coventry: Becta.

Becta. (2006). The rhetorics of creativity: A review of the literature. London: Arts

Council England.

Becta. (2007). Harnessing Technology schools survey 2007. Coventry: Becta.

Becta. (2009a). Becta's contribution to the Rose Review. Coventry: Becta.

Becta. (2009b). Harnessing Technology Review 2009: The role of technology in

education and skills. Coventry: Becta.

Becta. (2010). Digital Literacy: Teaching critical thinking for our digital world.

Coventry: Becta.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A critical

review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology , 39 (5), 775-

786.

61

Blair, T. (ND). Labour Party Conference 1997. Retrieved 07 28, 2011, from

totalpolitics: http://www.totalpolitics.com/speeches/labour/labour-party-

conference-leaders-speeches/34868/labour-party-conference-1997.thtml

BlogPulse. (ND). Home page. Retrieved 08 21, 2011, from BlogPulse:

http://www.blogpulse.com/

Bourdieu, P. (2008). Chapter 15. The Forms of Capital. In N. W. Biggart, Readings in

Economic Sociology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Bradshaw, J., Sturman, L., Vappula, H., Ager, R., & Wheater, R. (2006). Achievement

of 15-year-olds in England: PISA 2006 National Report. National Foundation

for Educational Research (nfer).

Bradshaw, J., Ager, R., Burge, B., & Wheater, R. (2009). PISA 2009: Achievement of

15-year-olds in England. nfer.

Brinkley, I. (2006). Defining the knowledge economy. The Work Foundation. London:

The Work Foundation.

Children, Schools and Families Committee. (2009). National Curriculum: Fourth

Report of Session 2008-09. House of Commons. London: The Stationery Office

Limited.

Cox, M. (2009). National Policies and Practices on ICT in Education: England. In T.

Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale, Cross-National Information and

Communication Technology: Policies and Practices in Education (Revised

Second Edition ed., pp. 257-277). Charlotte, NC, USA: IAP.

Creative Partnerships. (ND). Change Schools. Retrieved 08 28, 2011, from Creative

Partnerships: http://www.creative-partnerships.com/about/change-schools/

Creative Partnerships. (2010, 10 20). Creative Partnerships programme cut in

Spending Review - Reaction from Creativity, Culture and Education. Retrieved

08 20, 2011, from Creative Partnerships: http://www.creative-

62

partnerships.com/news-events/news/creative-partnerships-programme-cut-in-

spending-review-reaction-from-creativity-culture-and-education,448,ART.html

Daly, C., Pachler, N., & Pelletier, C. (2009). Continuing Professional Development in

ICT for teachers: A literature review. University of London, Institute of

Education. London: WLE Centre.

de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in Immersive worlds: A review of game-based

learning. London: JISC.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2009). Independent Review of the

Primary Curriculum: Final Report. Department for Children, Schools and

Families. London: Crown copyright.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Business, Innovation

and Skills. (2009). Digital Britain: Final Report. Norwich: The Stationary

Office.

Department for Education and Employment. (1997). Connecting the Learning Society.

Her Majesty's Government, Department for Education and Employment.

London: Crown copyright.

Department for Education and Employment. (1997). Excellence in schools. Her

Majesty's Government, Department for Education and Employment. London:

Crown copyright.

Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching. Her Majesty's

Government, Department for Education. London: Crown copyright.

Department for Education. (2011a, 01 27). Timetable for the National Curriculum

Review. Retrieved 08 06, 2011, from Department for Education:

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/a0073

092/timetable-for-the-national-curriculum-review

63

Department for Education. (2011b, 04 08). Review of the National Curriculum in

England: Remit. Retrieved 08 20, 2011, from Department for Education:

http://www.education.gov.uk/b0073043/remit-for-review-of-the-national-

curriculum-in-england/

Department for Education. (2011c, 06 29). Michael Gove speaks to the Royal Society

on maths and science. Retrieved 08 20, 2011, from YouTube:

http://youtu.be/iZ-g0OJupnA

Department for Education. (2011d, 07 25). Becta. Retrieved 08 20, 2011, from

Department for Education:

http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/armslengthbodies/a00192537/becta

Directgov. (ND). Understanding the curriculum. Retrieved 08 26, 2011, from

Directgov:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/Exams

TestsAndTheCurriculum/DG_4016665

Furlong, J. (2005). New Labour and Teacher Education: The End of an Era. Oxford

Review of Education , 31 (1), 119-134.

Futurelab. (2006). Teaching with games. Futurelab.

Grant, L. (2007). Learning to be part of the knowledge economy: digital divides and

media literacy. Futurelab.

Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a digital generation.

London: DEMOS.

Hague, C., & Williamson, B. (2009). Digital participation, digital literacy, and school

subjects. Futurelab.

Heppell, S. (ND). worried about PISA?. Retrieved 08 20, 2011, from Heppell.net:

http://www.heppell.net/pisa/

64

Heppell, S. (2010, 10 15). Prof Stephen Heppell: ULearn10 keynote. Retrieved 08 15,

2011, from EDtalks: http://edtalks.org/video/prof-stephen-heppell-ulearn10-

keynote

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary

schools teachers' educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers.

Computers & Education (51), 1499-1509.

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity:

distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies , 30 (1), 77-87.

Kerr, P., Byrne, C., & Foster, E. (2011). Theorising Cameronism. Political Studies

Review , 9 (2), 193-207.

Kirkwood, M., Parton, N., van der Kuyl, T., & Grant, R. (2000). The New Opportunities

Fund (NOF) ICT Training for Teachers Programme: Designing a Powerful

Online Learning Environment. European Conference on Educational Research.

Edinburgh: EDUCATION-LINE.

Labour Party. (ND). 1997 Labour Party manifesto. Retrieved 08 04, 2011, from labour-

party.org.uk: http://labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-

manifesto.shtml

Loveless, A. (2008). Creative learning and new technology? a proocation paper. In C.

Partnerships, Creative Learning (pp. 61-72). London: Arts Council England.

Lubart, T. (2005). How can computers be partners in the creative process:

Classification and comentary on the Special Issue. International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies (63), 365-369.

McKinsey & Company. (1997). The Future of Information Technology in UK Schools.

London: McKinsey & Company.

MirandaNet. (2004). Learning to Use ICT in Classrooms: Teachers' and Trainers'

Perspectives. London: MirandaNet.

65

NACCCE. (1999). All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. NACCCE.

OECD. (ND). What PISA Is. Retrieved 08 29, 2011, from OECD:

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235907_1_1_1_1_1,0

0.html

Peters, M. (2001). National education policy constructions of the 'knowledge economy':

towards a critique. Journal of Educational Enquiry , 2 (1).

Pinder, A. (2006, 10 16). The Future of e-learning. Retrieved 08 05, 2011, from Oxford

Internet Institute: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/?id=72

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 9 (5).

Prensky, M. (2011, 01 24). The Reformers Are Leaving Our Schools in the 20th Century.

SNS Newsletter .

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). Creativity, Culture & Education: The Costs and

Benefits of Creative Partnerships. CCE.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Information and communication

technology: The National Curriculum for England. London: Department for

Education and Employment, and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Reid, I., Brain, K., & Comerford Boys, L. (2004). Teachers or learning leaders?: where

have all the teachers gone? gone to be leaders, everyone. Educational Studies ,

30 (3), 251-264.

Robinson, K. (2010a). Changing Education Paradigms. Retrieved 07 26, 2011, from

YouTube - RSA Animate user page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Robinson, K. (2010b). Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution! Retrieved

07 26, 2011, from TED:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

66

Selwyn, N. (2000). The Discursive Construction of the National Grid for Learning.

Oxford Review of Education , 26 (1), 63-79.

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital

Divide. New Media Society , 6, 341-362.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native - myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New

Information Perspectives , 61 (4), 364-379.

Selwyn, N., Potter, J., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Primary pupils' use of information and

communication technologies at school and home. British Journal of

Educational Technology , 40 (5), 919-932.

Somekh, B., & Davies, R. (1991). Towards a pedagogy for information technology.

Curriculum Journal , 2 (2), 153-170.

Somekh, B. (2000). New Technology and Learning: Policy and Practice in the UK,

1980-2010. Education and Information Technologies , 5 (1), 19-37.

Steger, M. B., & Roy, R. K. (2010). Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction. New

York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Stephens, P. (2001). The Treasury under Labour. In A. Seldon, The Blair Effect.

London: Little, Brown.

TeachMeet. (ND). Wiki. Retrieved 08 30, 2011, from TeachMeet:

http://www.teachmeet.org.uk/

Training and Development Agency for Schools. (ND). Tool: Professional standards for

teachers. Retrieved 08 30, 2011, from TDA:

http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/professional-standards-

guidance/professional-standards.aspx?_cs=1745074864&_rm=-1049247932

The Big Art People. (ND). Home page. Retrieved 09 03, 2011, from The Big Art People:

http://www.thebigartpeople.co.uk

67

The Independent ICT in Schools Commission. (1997). Information and

Communication Technology in UK Schools. London: The Independent ICT in

Schools Commission.

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in

education: Two worlds apart? British Journal of Educational Technology , 38

(6), 962-976.

Vasagar, J. (2011, 08 25). GCSE results 2011: the beginning of the end of grade

inflation. Retrieved 08 30, 2011, from Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/25/gcses-beginning-end-

grade-inflation

Vass, M. (2008, 05). Children's Online Voices - A Case Study. Retrieved 08 21, 2011,

from Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13678604/Dissertation

Wallop, H. (2009, 12 26). Video games bigger than film. Retrieved 08 19, 2011, from

The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-

games/6852383/Video-games-bigger-than-film.html

Wikipedia contributors. (2011, 08 22). Wiki. (T. F. Wikipedia, Producer) Retrieved 08

22, 2011, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki&oldid=446118875

Wikipedia contributors. (2011, 09 02). Voice over Internet Protocol. Retrieved 09 03,

2011, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_over_Internet_Protocol&oldi

d=448036619

Wolfram, C. (2010, 11). Conrad Wolfram: Teaching kids real math with computers.

Retrieved 08 20, 2011, from TED:

http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_c

omputers.html

68

Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative

teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal

of Educational Technology , 39 (1), 84-96.

Wright, N. (2001). Leadership, 'Bastard Leadership' and Managerialism. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership , 29 (3), 275-290.

Younie, S. (2006, 10 7). Implementing government policy on ICT in education: Lessons

learnt. Education and Information Technologies , 385-400.