In the article 12 Characteristics of a good Computing Scheme of Work I said that people should work with other people on their Computing scheme of work. Why?

You know the old saying, many hands make light work. However, other reasons given here are arguably even more important.

It helps avoids group think, which can happen even if you're the only one in the group. If you create a scheme of work on your own, there's a good chance that bits of it will be unworkable or unintelligible, because nobody was there to question them at the time.

Group think can still happen within a school, though. This is when everyone in the group thinks something is wonderful or impossible or whatever, because the group is completely self-contained and self-referential. So ideally, work with colleagues from other schools too.

·Although not everyone may be an expert in Computing, they are experts in their own field, and they also have special interests and hobbies. That means they will come with ideas and examples that you wouldn't have thought of, and which will help to bring the scheme of work alive.

· I suggest delegating responsibility rather than tasks. If each person is responsible for a unit of work they can really think about how it should be taught, what training is needed for teachers, and what resources are needed for students.

Some people have told me that this could lead to extra work for the teachers. But if they were going to be producing materials anyway, this approach saves everyone work. How come? Think about it: if I produce a pack containing six weeks' worth of lesson plans, resources, CPD materials and assessment materials (eg quizzes), then you don't have to do anything for that unit of six weeks, except teach it. Then I get to use the unit that you created. Even with only two people working together, the workload is effectively halved. If that isn't quite right, all I can say is that I was no good at mathematics at school. But you can see the point I'm making, can't you?

I have also been told that this approach doesn't work if your colleagues know less than you do. It's quicker, the argument goes, to just get on with it and produce all the units of work yourself.

I think this is a muddle-headed approach for several reasons.

First, if you apply the economics law of comparative advantage, it can still make sense to divide up the units of work between colleagues. This is how it works. Let's say I am your Head of Department, and I know a lot more about everything to do with Computing than you do, because you're a science teacher. But, it turns out, you have a particular expertise in data-logging using light sensors and sound sensors. Not only that, but you love all that stuff, whereas I can take it or leave it. In these circumstances, it makes a lot of sense for me to ask you to take on all the units involving data-logging, because you will produce the materials a lot faster than I probably would, and almost certainly make them more interesting too. You’ll also be able to slip in little snippets of knowledge or how-to stuff that I had no idea existed, because you spend more time doing data-logging than I do.

Another example: what if one of the music teachers was a self-taught expert in making use of AI to compose music? You’d be daft not to ask him or her to demonstrate some of the things tried out, and what benefits and limitations were discovered. The you could discuss with students how far those lessons might apply to other areas.

Second, part of the job of a Head of Department is, in my opinion, to bring on the people working for him or her. If your colleagues know less than you do, then you should arrange for them to have some professional development. Another thing you should do is produce your units first, to give your colleagues time to develop theirs, using yours as an exemplar.

I tried this, and by producing the first two units, ie a term's work, first, it gave one of my colleagues a whole term to produce something, another colleague a term and a half, and a third colleague two terms, ie nearly a whole school year. In case you can't see how I worked this out, here's a table to illustrate it:

Term 1 First Half

Term 1 Second Half

Term Two First Half

Term Two Second Half

Me: Unit 1

Me: Unit 2

Colleague A: Unit 3

Colleague B: Unit 4

Third, I know from experience that this works. I think it's partly because people tend to rise – or fall – to the level of your expectations. We know this to be the case with kids, so why shouldn't it be the case with adults?

Now, I suppose the mammoth in the room is why bother to create resources and lesson plans anyway, when AI can do most of the work for you? Well, even if you’re a hundred percent satisfied with what the AI has produced, it is still a good idea to see what other people think.

I was listening to a podcast featuring Blake Morrison today, and he said that when he was writing a book about his father, there was a chapter on his father’s last days, when he was frail, a shadow of his former self. That was followed by a chapter on what his father was like as a young man. Morrison showed the manuscript to someone who said those chapters were the wrong way round: “Let the reader really get to know your dad as a real person, full of vitality, so that we can feel more symnpathy and empathy in his decline.” (Interestingly enough, when my mother was old, suffering from demential and in hospital, someone told us to put a photo of her when she was a young woman above her bed, in order to remind some of the medical staff (not all, I hasten to say) that beneath that frail, dessicated, broke exterior there is a real person, a person who has led a fulfilled and productive life.)

Collaboration works, and it often gives much better results than working completely alone.

Your newsletter editor is hard at work doing research for Digital Education, the free newsletter for education professionals. Have you subscribed yet?

Read more about it, and subscribe, on the Newsletter page of the ICT in Education website.

We use a double opt-in system, and you won’t get spammed.