Shedding some light on Approaches to Primary Computing

Just finished reading a 'Guest Post' by Miles Berry about how to think through implementing Primary Computing.

You can find the post here - http://www.qaeducation.co.uk/guest-blog-planning-teaching-assessing-computing/ - and I'm guessing Miles was given a fairly strict word limit or had limited time because whilst it does provide a useful thought-piece to inform staff who are thinking about implementing Computing at the Primary level it leads to many more questions than answers.

I really like Miles linking the development of programming skills to 'projects' in other subjects and his mention of the work carried out by Seymour Papert in developing the LOGO programming language. I think many schools should look again at LOGO and not necessarily be bewitched by 'cool' systems such as Scratch. LOGO, used correctly and as Miles suggests with a pupil-centred approach, has a lot to offer both in terms of programming AND as an aid to other curriculum subjects. It's particularly important to regard programming as a way of solving problems or 'scratching an itch' as that is the motivation so often quoted by creative and effective 'hackers'.

Another key point that Miles identified is the collaborative nature of programming. I have been involved in developing software over some 35 years in education and in ALL of the projects I have been party to the development has involved teams of individuals working collaboratively to create a final product. This applies at both Primary and Secondary phases and, especially in the secondary phase, opens up the opportunity to involve those students who are not 'turned on' by coding but can offer effective input in other areas of the project.

On assessment, I also agree with Miles that removing the straight jacket of levels was a largely positive thing. Whilst levels gave certain people some 'comfort' and uniformity I rarely saw the same teacher assign the same level as a colleague from another school and as a tool for learner empowerment they were worse than useless. Miles goes someway towards the direction I would go but I would like to see assessment take a much more enlightened, albeit more difficult, approach and really embrace the kind of assessment for  learning espoused by Professors Dylan Wiliam and Paul Black in their "Inside the Black Box" work (http://weaeducation.typepad.co.uk/files/blackbox-1.pdf). Although initially more difficult for the teacher to implement, as staff, pupils and parents become attuned to this way of working the approach becomes much more joyous and involves much more interaction with learners than filling in forms and this is what many teachers say they crave.

So thanks Miles, a great post and I look forward to reading more from you.