Utilising the power of manipulatives to support progress in computing
The 2014 primary curriculum brought about lots of changes including the shift from ICT to computing, and within that the emphasis on Computer Science. Ria Drabble, Deputy Director of Pinnacle Learning Research School and Year 6 teacher/Computing Lead at Broadfield Primary School in Oldham, applies the evidence around using manipulatives in maths to the subject of computing.
The addition of Computer Science presented many challenges for both teachers and pupils. For staff, it was a steep learning curve filled with terminology that we were not familiar with but were now expected to teach. As is the way with new technology, the children in general became more familiar with the software used than adults did. Our computing curriculum went through many iterations as we grew in confidence, and now we are settled with a curriculum we feel works for our children. As the computing lead, I began to look at assessment and it became clear that within our context the progress of pupils with SEND in computing was slower than other pupils, whilst their enthusiasm for the subject remained high.
Utilising evidence
Recommendation 2 of Improving Mathematics at Key Stage 2 and 3
There is very little research around effective computer science teaching particularly at primary level, but I had seen how the use of manipulatives and visuals in mathematics had helped to improve outcomes (Recommendation 2 of Improving Mathematics at Key Stage 2 and 3). I wondered if this approach might support improved outcomes for computing. Thanks to the guidance report, we have a clear definition of what manipulatives and representations look like in mathematics, but it took time to work out what they would look like in Computing.
Guidance report page 10
Manipulatives as a scaffold
I was clear that any manipulatives should act as a scaffold, as the guidance report tells us, and did not want children to become over-reliant on them. From these manipulatives, I then wanted to transition to a visual representation of the various coding environments and tools the children would encounter.
Thinking about implementation, we began small scale, focusing on my own KS2 class as I felt best placed to be able to make the adjustments to lessons required. Most programming lessons at KS2 took place within the Scratch environment, which involves moving a sprite on a screen. Jumping straight into this abstract realm did not scaffold our children so we spent time working on giving each other instructions to move through a maze, before progressing from a person to a BeeBot. We were still in the manipulative phase of thinking but the children began to grasp concepts such as debugging and abstraction far more quickly than when just working on screen. In fact, they found it easier to identify problems with their algorithms when working practically. From there, we moved to paper grids of squared paper and counters, and then to drawing pictures of what the sprite would do.
Before using the Scratch environment, I introduced children to the program “blocks” used. Scratch’s colour coding of blocks was useful, and I produced a knowledge organiser with this information for children to refer to. Before starting a task on screen, I would “rehearse” with the SEND children in the class, using my physical copies of the scratch blocks. This meant I could reduce the number of blocks the children had to deal with (something not possible within the on-screen environment) in order to reduce their cognitive load. When they had written an algorithm they felt was correct, they could then go into the abstract environment and see if it had the desired outcome. If not, we would “debug” using the physical blocks first, before returning to the computers. This process linked strongly with the seven-step model, particularly step 5 (Guided practice) into step 6 (independent practice).
Impact
Early results were promising. Within that class, children with SEND made better progress using this approach than before we had started using it. Assessments for the rest of the cohort also improved when using the manipulatives, showing us once again that whilst pupils with SEND benefit from the use of manipulatives and practical equipment, so do all children, exemplifying Recommendation 3 of the SEND in Mainstream guidance report.
Following the implementation guidance report, we are now moving on to scaling up the approach to see if the impact is replicated. It’s an exciting time in the development of our curriculum and has shown that recommendations in guidance reports can have applications outside of their subjects.
