Games on the curriculum

I spotted this intriguing piece earlier in the week -” ‘Games’ to be taught in Scottish Schools”

The article doesn’t reveal much in the way of details but claims:

Scottish schoolchildren are to be taught the basics of video game design as part of the country’s new national curriculum - dubbed the ‘Curriculum of Excellence’.

According to the Press Association, the move is to designed to ‘create the next generation of young programmers’.

Schools minister Maureen Watt unveiled the scheme … and added that the new lessons will teach children how to use computer software to create animations and feature films.

The typo there is that it is the Curriculum for Excellence, not of Excellence. But more frustrating were my attempts to learn more about this. Eventually via an enquiry to LTS I found the relevant details here. I’ve had a chance to briefly review these, searched out the references to games, and given this a little thought…

First, the documents are all draft documents - thus subject to revision. So probably worth looking at and giving feedback to LTS. I won’t consider the broad issues, or indeed anything other than the coverage of games. From the cover paper:

… the ICT draft experiences and outcomes … promote the development of those skills required for everyday life and work. Although these form part of the technologies framework, all practitioners … have a contribution to make to ensure that these skills are extended and used effectively in learning, taking account of the differing levels of expertise of each child and young person.
…
In addition, there are experiences and outcomes at the fourth level that represent areas of specialised study within computing and/or business education where the focus will be on specialised knowledge and skills in the application of computer technology. This will enable learners to develop deeper knowledge, skills and understanding within a subject context, building a foundation for more advanced specialised study and careers. The range of draft experiences and outcomes within the framework allows for different rates of progression, for additional depth of study or for breadth of study through the use of different contexts for learning.

This gives us some context for the outcomes. The games related outcomes can be found on page 9 of the Technologies Outcomes listings. Seperate outcomes and experiences are listed for each of five levels:

• Early - preschool and primary 1 (ages 3-5)
• First - to end of P4, earlier for some (up to age 8 )
• Second - to end of P7, earlier for some (to age 11 )
• Third & Fourth - S1 to S3, earlier for some (to age 14)

Fifth level is also mentioned, but not in the section that covers games, so I’ll skip that. On the first page of the outcomes report it also mentions that

Young people’s programmes will not include all of the fourth level outcomes: in most curriculum areas, the fourth level experiences and outcomes are intended to provide possibilities for choice.

Does this mean that all outcomes of levels 1 to 3 are expected to be covered for all children? Could be, though I am not familiar with CfE or the schools system generally.

It is good to see that games are making their way onto CfE, but I’m not totally convinced by these outcomes and experiences which do seem a little arbitrary. I’m not sure why game design is there before creating graphics and animations. How will children be inspired to design games when they don’t have the skills to actually create the game or see it realised? I’m also not sure that I can see significant progression between the third and fourth level animation outcomes. Changes in the ability to create graphics are perhaps more qualitative than quantitative as students progress - something that is hard to quantify in an outcomes model. A six year old can create graphics and animations using appropriate software that utilise her skills and knowledge of the application. Not the same detailed control, nor as mature an application as a 12 year old might use - but the difference is difficult to capture in statements like these.

At the third level we have the goal “Using appropriate software, I can design and implment a game or other application which is interesting and entertaining”. I suspect that there is a significant skills gap for teachers to be able to facilitate this kind of software development by S1-S3 pupils, nor am I sure what is to be considered appropriate software. Squeak e-Toys is perhaps the best fit for this age group, Scratch is an alternative that might also suit - and which includes some of the programming language elements stated in the fourth level outcomes. Giving teachers the confidence to use these tools will be a major undertaking, I would guess.

Finally, there is also a degree of divergence over the goals given in the CfE technologies outcomes versus those stated for Squeak - Alan Kay is interested in using the power of technologies to promote learning about the natural and physical world (for example), not simply as an end in itself. This is perhaps an area where CfE might better draw connections between different strands?