The word “digital” has a strong presence in virtually every sector these days, along with outcries for re-skilling and up-skilling of the workforce with digital literacy and skills for them to remain relevant for the future world of work. The Covid-19 pandemic has seemingly increased the pace and urgency of acquiring these skills. Internationally, digital literacy and skills are deemed essential by research and advisory firms like Gartner to enable lifelong learning and more effective workforce management, and ensure the competitiveness of employers and employees alike.

Digital literacy, according to UNESCO, is “the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, understand, evaluate, create, and communicate digital information”, an ability that requires both cognitive and technical skills. These skills include critical thinking, logical reasoning, creative problem-solving, self-evaluation, teamwork and communication.

As a professor in Digitalisation and Digital Economies at the North-West University (NWU) Business School, Prof Leenta Grobler has, in her previous role as associate professor in Computer and Electronic Engineering, been predisposed to encourage the introduction of these skills and attracting children to STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

“Over the years, I have had ample opportunity to teach and observe students in acquiring digital literacy, computer programming and electronic design skills. I have observed students from vastly different educational backgrounds master the same technically challenging content regardless of their journey before studying engineering, regardless of previous exposure to technology. I have also seen them thrive in the industry more often because of their attitude to learning, grit and ‘soft skills’ like effective communication and learning from their own mistakes than their mastery of the technical content, their ability to memorise textbooks, get straight A’s or never make mistakes. We (engineering faculties) take a blank canvas, and through a carefully designed curriculum guided by the graduate attributes of the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), create a unique and creative ‘artwork’ – a student who is responsive to the needs of society and makes the world a better place by developing, implementing, and integrating technology.

“It is against this background, and as a mother of three children currently in primary school, that I read the announcements by the government to introduce two new school subjects (Coding and Robotics) for all children between Grade R and 9. I studied the curriculum outline as posted on the website of the Department of Education and I identified several red flags. I then tested my observations with three of the most highly regarded education experts at my university’s School of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. While I have significant practical engineering education experience, they have dedicated their careers to researching the didactics of educating children in the STEM fields, focusing on Computer Science education and Technology education. I did this to ensure that my opinion was not biased by any of the many hats I wear, and I was astounded to find that they echoed every single one of my concerns,” Prof Grobler says.

Their concerns with the government’s plan are not with the objectives, but rather with the loaded content, the implementation and the sustainability of the plan. They are of the opinion that the focus of the plan is on content as opposed to skills. “It also seems to be completely out of tune with the contextual reality of our existing schooling system in South Africa.”

Prof Grobler’s major concerns are the following:

• Form should follow function: The proposed curriculum is not founded in the core fundamentals of sound science and mathematics and pedagogical principles. It is also not aligned with the research from evidence-based studies of how digital skills should be taught, but rather a disjointed blend of buzzwords and technologies that sound relevant to the layman but will not foster the higher-order skills as defined by UNESCO. It is also not integrated into the existing Science and Mathematics content of the curriculum.
• Assessment will govern the focus in the classroom: The assessment plan is not aligned with measuring the higher-order skills. The suggested activities are superficial and will not build competence or confidence in the subject matter. In fact, it may distract more than it helps and add more assessment events to an existing curriculum congested with more assessments than opportunities for learning.
• No progression during implementation: The plan involves simultaneous implementation across most if not all grades without ensuring that the fundamental knowledge of previous years is introduced in a progressive and cohesive manner.
• Inappropriate pedagogical approach: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education requires alternative and engaged teaching and learning strategies to traditional teaching – we do not have the human resources with the required interest or foundation in STEM methodologies in our primary schools to teach the suggested two new subjects. The current implementation of Technology in the CAPS curriculum is a prime example of why this is a bad idea: teachers focus on the theory in class, while all practical assignments are sent home to be completed by parents, or worse, entrepreneurs preying on the emotions of parents to sell practical kits. The assignment is then assessed by the school based on superficial criteria that have very little to do with the core fundamentals, but rather with what fits into a marking rubric.
• Increasing the digital divide: An unintended consequence of this drive to rapidly introduce digital skills into the curriculum may be that we create a larger digital divide. We still have a very large disparity in resourced and under-resourced schools in South Africa today. A large portion of our school-going population does not yet have access to electricity or running water at school, much less have they seen a computer or a robot before. Now we expect them to learn multiple programming languages and build robots and other complex machines.
• Opportunities for misguided entrepreneurship: The proposed curriculum will require significant investment in computers, internet connectivity, software, electronic equipment and training. To the person unfamiliar with the relevant jargon, a salesperson may promise the world in the form of ready-to-use kits and other quick solutions, without assurance that it will address the need. Or worse: even creating more confusion in the minds of our educators.

After identifying these issues, Prof Grobler asked herself: “We do not expect a matric Biology graduate to start practising as a medical doctor, so why does this curriculum attempt to turn them into engineers in the same short span of time?”

“Do not get me wrong, I am not against teaching digital skills to children or attracting them to the STEM field. In fact, as the coordinator of the Modiragatsi Youth Innovation Programme I teach high school learners about problem-solving, computational thinking and product development. I teach them all the UNESCO digital skills, but I do not teach them a single programming language or expect them to build electronics – I teach them a way of thinking, reasoning and communicating that they can implement in all their daily tasks and problems.”

She says the motivation given by the government as to why these two subjects should be taught frequently include arguments on critical thinking and problem-solving and making the Mathematics and Science content more tangible and, of course, future-proofing our kids. But is this content and are these specific subjects the only way to integrate these concepts into the curriculum? “Could active learning through exploration, cooperation and play not be sufficiently integrated into the current curriculum and with what we already have, our bodies, our natural curiosity, our interaction with friends and the physical world around us? These are all aspects that require little to no ‘technology’ to foster and implement.”

Prof Grobler says that one should not forget that society needs more than just tech-savvy scientists and engineers. “We live in a complex and interconnected society that requires other very critical skills that define the human experience. These skills are developed during early childhood and through exploration and play – two things that there is very rarely time for in the curriculum as it stands. Even if we have the skills to develop new technology, the importance of interpersonal communication and a thorough understanding of both the social and the physical world is fundamental in creating products and solutions that are useful, have an impact and integrate well with real life.

“I am not arguing that we should not find creative ways of allowing kids to observe the implementation of mathematics and science concepts, or introduce new content and topics into the curriculum. However, I do not believe that adding more subjects is the correct way to do it. In fact, I believe that this is a sensible point in time to re-evaluate the entire school curriculum and whether it is achieving its objectives. Are we developing the minds, creativity and attitudes of our next generation, or are we keeping them busy with a lot of content with very little impact?

“As a parent, I find it frustrating that not a single week goes by without some form of assessment happening in class, that my children are so exhausted after a school day that they will forego playing outside or socialising with friends. That there is no time or interest to explore the interesting aspects of a scientific topic, because ‘it will not be in the test’.

“But as an engineer who is sensitive to our impact on society, I am mostly worried about potentially widening the digital divide between resourced and under-resourced public schools. The one may be able to appoint a dedicated resource to build and operate a Robotics lab at their school, while the other does not even have electricity or running water at their school and could use the funding better by rather decreasing class size in their existing subjects.

“We all want our children to develop as individuals through a curriculum that is internationally relevant, but we cannot do so responsibly by merely adding more subjects with names that sound timeous, without considering the reality of teachers, kids and parents in an overfilled curriculum. Let us go back to the drawing board and rethink not only these two new subjects, but the entire curriculum,” she concludes.

About Prof Leenta Grobler:

She is a computer and electronic engineer whose research career started in the field of telecommunication, where she focused on network modelling, planning and optimisation and worked closely with her contacts in the telecommunication industry to ensure that her research is relevant and practical. She has always had a keen interest in digitisation and automation of manual processes. Since 2016 she has been actively engaged in the development of devices and systems that will enable the digitisation and analytics of data that will support decision-making in healthcare (Digital Health). She does this by applying IoT-technology to healthcare problems relating to patient compliance and minimising the effects of human error in healthcare data. She is currently appointed as associate professor in Digitalisation and Digital Economies at the NWU Business School.