The role of new technology in teaching and learning in school history

There are interesting questions about the part that new technology might or should play in school history. It has been argued that ‘It doesn’t really matter whether or not a majority of history teachers use IT in their classrooms. What does matter is that history is part of the curriculum and that it is taught well.’ (An assertion made at a history workshop, quoted in Dickinson, 1998). Others argue that there is no place in the teaching profession for teachers who are not able to use new technology in their teaching. In the words of Cochrane (1995), ‘in future, there will be two sorts of teacher, the IT literate, and the retired’.

The role that ICT has played in school history thus far is contested. Charles Clarke (2003: 2) stated that ‘our extensive and continuing research shows that pupils who use ICT in the classroom get better results than those who don't. This is true across all abilities, communities and subjects.' Nichol, (drawing on the same research) argues that ‘there is relatively little to show for the major investment of time, resources and human endeavour in educational ICT…. Rarely in the history of education has so much been spent by so many for so long, with so little to show for the blood, sweat and tears expended.’ HMI find that lessons in which history teachers use ICT are, on average, less good than lessons where ICT is not used (Ofsted, 2002, Harrison, 2003).

How are those involved in the training of history teachers to respond, given that the use of ICT in subject teaching is an area of education policy and practice which is characterised by assertion and counter-assertion and widely differing findings, and which is subject to rapid change in terms of technological development?

It could be argued that the responsibilities of the history teacher educator are laid out in the 02/02 Standards for QTS; that our job is simply to ensure that training is such that our trainees ‘meet the Standards’ related to ICT; and that we do not pass anyone who has not met each one of these Standards - there is nothing more that should concern us. Even if we choose not to think about other models for judging whether history trainees are sufficiently competent in the use of ICT that they can be unleashed on generations of children, there are questions about how best to prepare them to meet the Standards relating to ICT, and how the ‘bottom line’ in terms of pass/fail is to be defined. Moreover, the Standards relating to ICT have changed drastically over the past few years. Compare the present Standards relating to ICT (see resource 10.1.1) with the previous version (DfES, 1998). The Standards as currently defined are not differentiated by school subject, and yet to anyone who has been a teacher, it is self-evident that the uses of ICT vary according to the nature of the school subject. For example, data logging is central to the practice of science teachers, but of no use or relevance to history teachers. So which ICT applications constitute ‘competence’ in ICT as a history teacher? Is it about how many different applications you can use or how effectively you use some of them? Can you pass someone who makes brilliant use of some ICT applications but has’ black holes’ (for example, cannot use relational databases such as Microsoft Access)?

So there are at least three questions (or dilemmas) for history teacher educators:

• What exactly are you trying to achieve with your trainees in the field of history and ICT?
• How can you provide experiences which help them to make the most of the potential that new technology might have for enhancing teaching and learning in history?
• How is the ‘bottom line’ of minimum competence sufficient to meet the 02/02 Standards relating to ICT to be defined and operated?

Activity 10.1.1 ‘Meeting the Standards’

Activity 10.1.2 The elements of a comprehensive ICT programme