From rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk Mon Feb 8 21:06:23 2010 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk (Ray Tolley) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 21:06:23 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] The ICT Continuum Hoax? Message-ID: <007d01caa902$91ba87f0$b52f97d0$@co.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007E_01CAA902.91BA87F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From my friend Mal Lee: From: Mal Lee [mailto:mal.lee@netspeed.com.au] Sent: 07 February 2010 23:18 Subject: The ICT Continuum Hoax The ICT Continuum Hoax? Hi One for all you wise owls. The question mark is important. As you'll be aware schools and education authorities across the world have developed curriculum documents called ICT continuum that guide teachers across the school/s in their development of the students' ICT' competencies. In a number of situations the continuum also provides the base for much publicized state/provincial testing and reporting of ICT competence. The continuum purports to describe the developmental phases in the young peoples' acquisition of the ICT competencies. In turn they serve as a guide to teachers shaping their teaching programme. I have to admit I've some very real concerns about the validity of the exercise, and am moved to ask if the practice is not a hoax. The first major concern revolves around the term 'ICT' and the implicit assumption that that term describes an established and clearly defined field of study, like Mathematics or Physics. Any Google search will soon show the fallacy of that assumption, with the term varying in meaning from the very narrow, where it is used synonymously with the term computer, to the very broad where it is used to refer to all forms of information and communications technology, analogue and digital. In the education context the meaning of the term is further confused because it covers only the 'approved' types of information and communications technology, and most assuredly does not include the likes of mobile or cell phones, iPods, digital cameras or games consoles or indeed those ever-emerging highly convergent entities like smartphones that integrate all the aforementioned functions. And yet with all this uncertainty and nebulous theoretical base some very astute 'digital immigrants' have been able to identify and construct 'ICT continuum' that all teachers must follow. The second major concern is the seeming lack of research validating the current continuum. Do any of you know of the research underpinning such continuum? I admit to not seeing anything. Who is the Jean Piaget [or for that matter a John Dewey? - RT) who has identified the developmental phases and key attributes on which to develop such a curriculum document? Why is the content of the formal continuum at such variance to the kind of competencies shown by the young outside the classroom? It is when one encounters the kind of observation below by an adjunct professor of education that one becomes concerned, and is obliged to question the educational validity of using such a nebulous and dated term as ICT and in turn for school authorities to continue with the present ICT continuum. "Young people appear to use technology in ways that are different to most of their teachers and parents. Adults (depending on their age) typically use Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as functional tools that are used for practical or business purposes." (McGrath, 2009, p2) One wonders what place digital TVs, DVD players, digital cameras, car radios, iPods, iTunes, 'web enabled phones, Skype, games consoles and the social networking facilities occupy in her definition of ICT. It would be great for researchers of Piaget's capability to identify the developmental phases in the acquisition of ever changing, ever evolving competencies and attitudes that emanate from the young's all pervasive use of an ever evolving suite of digital technologies but one senses that is still some time off? Are we currently perpetuating a hoax by continuing to: a. use the term 'ICT' b. validate the use of the current 'ICT continuum Kind regards Mal Lee PO Box 5010, Broulee, NSW, Australia + 61 2 44 717 947 ------=_NextPart_000_007E_01CAA902.91BA87F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From my friend Mal Lee:

 

From: Mal Lee = [mailto:mal.lee@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: 07 February 2010 23:18
Subject: The ICT Continuum Hoax

 

The ICT Continuum Hoax?

 <= /p>

Hi

 

One for all you wise = owls.

 

The question mark is important.

 

As you’ll be aware schools and education authorities across the world = have developed curriculum documents called ICT continuum that guide teachers = across the school/s in their development of the students’ ICT' = competencies.

 

In a number of situations the continuum also provides the base for much = publicized state/provincial testing and reporting of ICT = competence.

 

The continuum purports to describe the developmental phases in the young peoples’ acquisition of the ICT = competencies.

 

In turn they serve as a guide to teachers shaping their teaching = programme.

 

I have to admit I’ve some very real concerns about the validity of the = exercise, and am moved to ask if the practice is not a hoax.

 

The first major concern revolves around the = term ‘ICT’ and the implicit assumption that that term describes = an established and clearly defined field of study, like Mathematics or = Physics.

 

Any Google search will soon show the fallacy of that assumption, with the = term varying in meaning from the very narrow, where it is used synonymously = with the term computer, to the very broad where it is used to refer to all forms = of information and communications
technology, analogue and digital.

 

In the education context the meaning of the term is further confused because it = covers only the ‘approved’ types of information and communications technology, and most assuredly does not include the likes of mobile or = cell phones, iPods, digital cameras or games consoles or
indeed those ever-emerging highly convergent entities like smartphones = that integrate all the aforementioned = functions.

 

And yet with all this uncertainty and nebulous theoretical base some very astute ‘digital immigrants’ have been able to identify and = construct ‘ICT continuum’ that all teachers must = follow.

 <= /p>

The second major = concern is the seeming lack of research validating the current = continuum.

Do any of you know of the research underpinning such = continuum?

 

I admit to not seeing anything.

 

Who is the Jean Piaget [or for that matter a = John Dewey? – RT) who has identified the developmental phases and key attributes on which to develop such a = curriculum document?

 

Why is the content of the formal continuum at such variance to the kind of competencies shown by the young outside the = classroom?

 

It is when one encounters the kind of observation below by an adjunct = professor of education that one becomes concerned, and is obliged to question the educational validity of using such a nebulous and dated term as ICT and = in turn for school authorities to continue
with the present ICT continuum.

 

“Young people appear to use technology in ways that are = different to most of their teachers and parents. Adults (depending on their age) typically use Information and = Communication Technologies (ICTs) as functional tools that are used for
practical or business purposes.” (McGrath, 2009, = p2)

 

One wonders what place digital TVs, DVD players, digital cameras, car = radios, iPods, iTunes, ‘web enabled phones, Skype, games consoles and the = social networking facilities occupy in her definition of = ICT.

 

It would be great for researchers of Piaget’s capability to identify = the developmental phases in the acquisition of ever changing, ever evolving competencies and attitudes that emanate from the young’s all = pervasive use of an ever evolving suite of digital technologies but
one senses that is still some time off?

 

Are we currently perpetuating a hoax by continuing to:

a.     use the term ‘ICT’

b.     validate the use of the current ‘ICT continuum

Kind regards

Mal Lee

PO Box 5010, Broulee, NSW, Australia

+ 61 2 44 717 947

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_007E_01CAA902.91BA87F0-- From rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk Mon Feb 8 22:27:02 2010 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk (Ray Tolley) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:27:02 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01CAA90D.DB794FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mal, It all depends on how you define 'Continuum' and how you define 'Competency'. If by 'Continuum' you mean that 'All 11yr-olds should be able to do this, this and this.' And at 12-yrs old they should additionally be able to do that and that.' And by 13yrs old they should all be able to do, 'The other and the other.' Then I would agree with you. However, if we believe in personal learning plans (PLPs) then perhaps we can say/negotiate for each individual, "Your target for this week/term/year should be..." And these should be written in terms of processes rather than competencies but still leaving room for the unexpected. If not set as actual targets (and even these allow for adjustments) then at least the continuum can be seen as a track-record, an audit trail or 'breadcrumbs'. As professionals we often suggest considering, "Where are we now? Where do we want to get to? How will we get there? and How will we know when we have arrived?" (Accepting that learning never really stops.) If such a planning strategy (or continuum) is appropriate for us as professionals why should we not share such approaches with our children and their parents? Again, 'Competency' should not be thought of in terms of practical abilities such as 'cut and paste', 'insert page numbering' or 'write a conditional IF statement'. This went out of UK thinking almost ten years ago! Competencies are about processes, such as 'plan a strategy in order to...', 'negotiate with a partner how to share a workload', 'design a presentation to challenge conventional ideas concerning...', 'or 'investigate the historical causes of...' The need to learn technical skills then becomes purpose driven as I suggest in one of my presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/maximise/planning-my-learning Best Wishes, Ray Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, MBILD ICT Education Consultant Maximise ICT Ltd P: http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/ B: http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/ W: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' From: Mal Lee [mailto:mal.lee@netspeed.com.au] Sent: 07 February 2010 23:18 To: Glenn Finger; Mike Gaffney; Arthur Winzenried; Jason Zagami; Damian Maher; Phil Roberts; Karen Bonanno; Lyn Hay; Judy Parr; lorrae@cyperus.co.nz; Martin Levins; Peter Kent; Allan Shaw; Roger Hayward; Ray Tolley; John Hodgkinson; Tony Brandenburg Subject: The ICT Continuum Hoax The ICT Continuum Hoax? Hi One for all you wise owls. The question mark is important. As you'll be aware schools and education authorities across the world have developed curriculum documents called ICT continuum that guide teachers across the school/s in their development of the students' ICT' competencies. In a number of situations the continuum also provides the base for much publicized state/provincial testing and reporting of ICT competence. The continuum purport to describe the developmental phases in the young peoples' acquisition of the ICT competencies. In turn they serve as a guide to teachers shaping their teaching program. I have to admit I've some very real concerns about the validity of the exercise, and am moved to ask if the practice is not a hoax. The first major concern revolves around the term 'ICT' and the implicit assumption that that term describes an established and clearly defined field of study, like Mathematics or Physics. Any Google search will soon show the fallacy of that assumption, with the term varying in meaning from the very narrow, where it is used synonymously with the term computer, to the very broad where it is used to refer to all forms of information and communications technology, analogue and digital. In the education context the meaning of the term is further confused because it covers only the 'approved' types of information and communications technology, and most assuredly does not include the likes of mobile or cell phones, iPods, digital cameras or games consoles or indeed those ever-emerging highly convergent entities like smartphones that integrate all the aforementioned functions. And yet with all this uncertainty and nebulous theoretical base some very astute 'digital immigrants' have been able to identify and construct 'ICT continuum' that all teachers must follow. The second major concern is the seeming lack of research validating the current continuum. Do any of you know of the research underpinning such continuum? I admit to not seeing anything. Who is the Jean Piaget who has identified the developmental phases and key attributes on which to develop such a curriculum document? Why is the content of the formal continuum at such variance to the kind of competencies shown by the young outside the classroom? It is when one encounters the kind of observation below by an adjunct professor of education that one becomes concerned, and is obliged to question the educational validity of using such a nebulous and dated term as ICT and in turn for school authorities to continue with the present ICT continuum. "Young people appear to use technology in ways that are different to most of their teachers and parents. Adults (depending on their age) typically use Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as functional tools that are used for practical or business purposes." (McGrath, 2009, p2) One wonders what place digital TVs, DVD players, digital cameras, car radios, iPods, iTunes, 'web enabled phones, Skype, games consoles and the social networking facilities occupy in her definition of ICT. It would be great for researchers of Piaget's capability to identify the developmental phases in the acquisition of ever changing, ever evolving competencies and attitudes that emanate from the young's all pervasive use of an ever evolving suite of digital technologies but one senses that is still some time off? Are we currently perpetuating a hoax by continuing to: a. use the term 'ICT' b. validate the use of the current 'ICT continuum Kind regards Mal Lee PO Box 5010, Broulee, NSW, Australia + 61 2 44 717 947 ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01CAA90D.DB794FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mal,

 

It all depends on how you define ‘Continuum’ = and how you define ‘Competency’.

 

If by ‘Continuum’ you mean that ‘All = 11yr-olds should be able to do this, this and this.’ And at 12-yrs old they = should additionally be able to do that and that.’  And by 13yrs old = they should all be able to do, ‘The other and the other.’ =  Then I would agree with you.  However,  if we believe in personal = learning plans (PLPs) then perhaps we can say/negotiate for each individual, =  “Your target for this week/term/year should be...”  And these = should be written in terms of processes rather than competencies but still leaving = room for the unexpected.  If not set as actual targets (and even these = allow for adjustments)  then at least the continuum can be seen as a track-record, an audit trail or ‘breadcrumbs’.  As professionals we often suggest considering, “Where are we now? =  Where do we want to get to?  How will we get there? and How will we know = when we have arrived?”  (Accepting that learning never really = stops.)  If such a planning strategy (or continuum) is appropriate for us as = professionals  why should we not share such approaches with our children and their = parents?

 

Again, ‘Competency’ should not be thought of = in terms of practical abilities such as ‘cut and paste’, = ‘insert page numbering’ or ‘write a conditional IF = statement’.  This went out of UK thinking almost ten years ago!  Competencies are = about processes, such as ‘plan a strategy in order to...’,  = ‘negotiate with a partner how to share a workload’,  ‘design a presentation to challenge conventional ideas concerning...’, = ‘or ‘investigate the historical causes of...’

 

The need to learn technical skills then becomes purpose = driven as I suggest in one of my presentations:

http://w= ww.slideshare.net/maximise/planning-my-learning

=

 

Best Wishes,

 

Ray Tolley  FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, = MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT Ltd

P:  ht= tp://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/

B:  ht= tp://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/

W:  ht= tp://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm

Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award = 2009'

 

From: Mal Lee = [mailto:mal.lee@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: 07 February 2010 23:18
To: Glenn Finger; Mike Gaffney; Arthur Winzenried; Jason Zagami; = Damian Maher; Phil Roberts; Karen Bonanno; Lyn Hay; Judy Parr; = lorrae@cyperus.co.nz; Martin Levins; Peter Kent; Allan Shaw; Roger Hayward; Ray Tolley; John Hodgkinson; Tony Brandenburg
Subject: The ICT Continuum Hoax

 

The ICT Continuum Hoax?

 

Hi

 

One for all you wise = owls.

 

The question mark is important.

 

As you’ll be aware schools and education authorities across the world = have developed curriculum documents called ICT continuum that guide teachers = across the school/s in their development of the students’ ICT' = competencies.

 

In a number of situations the continuum also provides the base for much = publicized state/provincial testing and reporting of ICT = competence.

 

The continuum purport to describe the developmental phases in the young peoples’ acquisition of the ICT = competencies.

 

In turn they serve as a guide to teachers shaping their teaching = program.

 

I have to admit I’ve some very real concerns about the validity of = the exercise, and am moved to ask if the practice is not a = hoax.

 

The first major concern revolves around the term ‘ICT’ and the = implicit assumption that that term describes an established and clearly defined = field of study, like Mathematics or Physics.

 

Any Google search will soon show the fallacy of that assumption, with the = term varying in meaning from the very narrow, where it is used synonymously = with the term computer, to the very broad where it is used to refer to all forms = of information and communications
technology, analogue and digital.

 

In the education context the meaning of the term is further confused = because it covers only the ‘approved’ types of information and = communications technology, and most assuredly does not include the likes of mobile or = cell phones, iPods, digital cameras or games consoles or
indeed those ever-emerging highly convergent entities like smartphones = that
integrate all the aforementioned functions.

 

And yet with all this uncertainty and nebulous theoretical base some very = astute ‘digital immigrants’ have been able to identify and = construct ‘ICT continuum’ that all teachers must = follow.

 

The second major = concern is the seeming lack of research validating the current = continuum.

 

 

Do any of you know of the research underpinning such = continuum?

 

I admit to not seeing anything.

 

Who is the Jean Piaget who has identified the developmental phases and key attributes on which to develop such a curriculum = document?

 

Why is the content of the formal continuum at such variance to the kind of competencies shown by the young outside the = classroom?

 

It is when one encounters the kind of observation below by an adjunct = professor of education that one becomes concerned, and is obliged to question the educational validity of using such a nebulous and dated term as ICT and = in turn for school authorities to continue
with the present ICT continuum.

 

 

“Young people appear to use technology in ways that are = different to most of their teachers and parents. Adults (depending on their age) typically use Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) as functional tools that are used = for
practical or business purposes.” (McGrath, 2009, = p2)

 

 

One wonders what place digital TVs, DVD players, digital cameras, car = radios, iPods, iTunes, ‘web enabled phones, Skype, games consoles and the = social networking facilities occupy in her definition of = ICT.

 

 

It would be great for researchers of Piaget’s capability to identify = the developmental phases in the acquisition of ever changing, ever evolving competencies and attitudes that emanate from the young’s all = pervasive use of an ever evolving suite of digital technologies but
one senses that is still some time off?

 

 

Are we currently perpetuating a hoax by continuing to:

 

a.     use the term ‘ICT’

 

b.     validate the use of the current ‘ICT = continuum

 

Kind regards

 

Mal Lee

PO Box 5010, Broulee, NSW, Australia

+ 61 2 44 717 947

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01CAA90D.DB794FB0-- From rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk Mon Feb 8 22:34:44 2010 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk (Ray Tolley) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:34:44 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] AACE Conference Keynote 2008 Message-ID: <00bb01caa90e$e990fcf0$bcb2f6d0$@co.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BC_01CAA90E.E990FCF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An outstanding presentation but took me 5mins to download on 50Mb broadband - next time I will take time to copy some of the memorable quotes. Possibly a good CPD presentation if your staff are ready for it! http://site.aace.org/conf/archive/2008/mishra-site-08.htm I don't know why I have not seen this before! Ray Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, MBILD ICT Education Consultant Maximise ICT Ltd P: http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/ B: http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/ W: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' ------=_NextPart_000_00BC_01CAA90E.E990FCF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

An outstanding presentation but took me 5mins to download = on 50Mb broadband – next time I will take time to copy some of the = memorable quotes.  Possibly a good CPD presentation if your staff are ready = for it!

 

http:/= /site.aace.org/conf/archive/2008/mishra-site-08.htm

 

I don’t know why I have not seen this = before!

 

Ray Tolley  FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, = MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT Ltd

P:  http://raytolley.v2efoliowor= ld.mnscu.edu/

B:  ht= tp://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/

W:  http://www.maximise-ict.co.u= k/eFolio-01.htm

Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award = 2009'

 

------=_NextPart_000_00BC_01CAA90E.E990FCF0-- From Terry Freedman" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_05F3_01CAA9E6.AE78E050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colleagues I have just published a newsletter containing the views of a number of = people about BETT, ie what they saw that 'wow'ed them, plus various news = items. Hope you find it useful/enjoyable: http://ymlp.com/zr2Wkj Best wishes Terry Terry Freedman, Independent Educational Technology Consultant=20 Website: http://www.ictineducation.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- The contents of this email and any attachments may contain software = viruses that could damage your own computer systems.=20 Whilst Terry Freedman Ltd has taken every precaution to minimise this = risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you may sustain as = a result of software viruses. This email is confidential and intended = for the recipient only. If you have received this email in error, please = inform us immediately and then delete it. Unless it specifically states = otherwise, this email does not form part of a contract. ----------------------=20 Terry Freedman, Independent Educational Technology Consultant The Educational Technology - ICT in Education website For users, = teachers, leaders and managers of educational ICT The (free) Computers in Classrooms newsletter=20 Phone: +44 (0) 191 645 1046 My full contact details=20 My work=20 ----------------------=20 The contents of this email and any attachments may=20 contain software viruses that could damage your own computer systems.=20 Whilst Terry Freedman Ltd has taken every precaution to minimise this = risk,=20 we cannot accept liability for any damage that you may sustain as a=20 result of software viruses.=20 This email is confidential and intended for the recipient only. If you = have=20 received this email in error, please inform us immediately and then = delete=20 it. Unless it specifically states otherwise, this email does not form = part of=20 a contract. ------=_NextPart_000_05F3_01CAA9E6.AE78E050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colleagues
 
I have just published a newsletter = containing the=20 views of a number of people about BETT, ie what they saw that 'wow'ed = them, plus=20 various news items. Hope you find it useful/enjoyable:
 
http://ymlp.com/zr2Wkj
 
Best wishes
Terry

Terry Freedman, Independent Educational Technology Consultant

Website: http://www.ictineducation.org=

The contents of this email and any attachments may contain software = viruses=20 that could damage your own computer systems.

Whilst Terry Freedman Ltd has taken every precaution to minimise this = risk,=20 we cannot accept liability for any damage that you may sustain as a = result of=20 software viruses. This email is confidential and intended for the = recipient=20 only. If you have received this email in error, please inform us = immediately and=20 then delete it. Unless it specifically states otherwise, this email does = not=20 form part of a contract.

----------------------
Terry Freedman, = Independent Educational Technology Consultant

The Educational Technology = - ICT in=20 Education website For users, teachers, leaders and managers of = educational=20 ICT

The (free) Computers in = Classrooms=20 newsletter
Phone: +44 (0) 191 645 1046 My full contact = details=20
My = work=20
----------------------
The contents of this email and any = attachments=20 may
contain software viruses that could damage your own computer = systems.=20
Whilst Terry Freedman Ltd has taken every precaution to minimise = this risk,=20
we cannot accept liability for any damage that you may sustain as a=20
result of software viruses.
This email is confidential and = intended for=20 the recipient only. If you have
received this email in error, please = inform=20 us immediately and then delete
it. Unless it specifically states = otherwise,=20 this email does not form part of
a contract.

------=_NextPart_000_05F3_01CAA9E6.AE78E050-- From theo.kuechel@googlemail.com Wed Feb 10 11:15:06 2010 From: theo.kuechel@googlemail.com (theo kuechel) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:15:06 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: --0016364175598ace30047f3d258f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources. Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leonfor access. It think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote: > Colleagues > > Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal > Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK > schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), > "the *official government body* responsible for granting Intellectual > Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their > consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital > age. > > We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our > schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to > coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the > IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk > -- Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk --0016364175598ace30047f3d258f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul, Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and probably of greate= r significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including=A0 i= Pads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes = of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our = digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportu= nities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture= of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and developmen= t of teacher created resources.

Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents = it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a co= py of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments /= annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It=A0 think is important we have that debate and I personally look forw= ard to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we= can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace wo= rking group on this?

Best
Theo




On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul S= pringford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:
Colleagues
Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal = Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for = UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IP= O), "the official government body responsible for granting Inte= llectual=20 Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's th= eir consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digi= tal age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the impl= ications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.u= k



--
Theo Kuechel
Learnin= g Technology Research =A0
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk


--0016364175598ace30047f3d258f-- From dfee@btinternet.com Wed Feb 10 11:58:54 2010 From: dfee@btinternet.com (Leon Cych) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:58:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <82954.53035.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --0-906369409-1265803134=:53035 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As Theo says - this is very important and the time to act is now - if peopl= e can spare the time to add comments to the relevant paras I will cut and p= aste the responses referencing the paras and comments. It really is urgent. Leon Cych --- On Wed, 10/2/10, theo kuechel wrote: From: theo kuechel Subject: Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education To: "Paul Springford" Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org, primary@talk.naace.org, secondary@talk.naace.org= , "Advisory talk" Date: Wednesday, 10 February, 2010, 11:15 Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the m= any technologies we often discuss, (including=A0 iPads, Interactive whitebo= ards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are = likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access dig= ital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our lear= ners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the fore= seeable future and permeate all=0Aeducational uses of ICT including distanc= e learning, mobile=0Atechnologies, student work in digital format and the s= haring and development of teacher=0Acreated resources. =0A=0A Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appea= rs there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Go= wer's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add = comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access. =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A It=A0 think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward = to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can= start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace workin= g group on this? =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A Best =0A=0ATheo =0A On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote= : =0A=0A=0A=0AColleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal M= ateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK sc= hools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "= the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual =0APrope= rty (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultati= on and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our= schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are=0Alooking for a volunteer t= o coordinate the discussion and use it as the=0Abasis of a Naace response t= o the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk =0A --=20 Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research =A0 theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A --0-906369409-1265803134=:53035 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= /tr>
As Theo says - this is very important and the= time to act is now - if people can spare the time to add comments to the r= elevant paras I will cut and paste the responses referencing the paras and = comments.

It really is urgent.

Leon Cych

--- On Wed= , 10/2/10, theo kuechel <theo.kuechel@googlemail.com> wrot= e:

From: theo kuechel <theo.kuechel@goog= lemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and= Education
To: "Paul Springford" <paul.springford@naace.org>
Cc= : beyond@talk.naace.org, primary@talk.naace.org, secondary@talk.naace.org, = "Advisory talk" <advisory@talk.naace.org>
Date: Wednesday, 10 Febr= uary, 2010, 11:15

Paul, Colleagues;

= This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many tec= hnologies we often discuss, (including  iPads, Interactive whiteboards= , Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are like= ly to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital= content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners= . These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseea= ble future and permeate all=0Aeducational uses of ICT including distance le= arning, mobile=0Atechnologies, student work in digital format and the shari= ng and development of teacher=0Acreated resources.
=0A=0A
Having read= Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is= some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recom= mendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add comments /annota= tions. Please email Leon = for access.
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
It  think is important we have th= at debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community view= s, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response.= I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this?
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A= =0A
Best
=0A=0ATheo
=0A



= On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org<= /a>> wrote:
=0A=0A=0A=0A
Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in= the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important co= nsultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the= Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body r= esponsible for granting Intellectual =0AProperty (IP) rights in the United = Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with c= opyright in education in a digital age.

We firmly expect that member= s will wish to discuss the implications for our schools and colleges here o= n Naacetalk. We are=0Alooking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion = and use it as the=0Abasis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please= to paul.sp= ringford@naace.co.uk
=0A


--
Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research  
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk
= =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A

=0A
--0-906369409-1265803134=:53035-- From DavidTidman@barnsley.gov.uk Wed Feb 10 21:34:57 2010 From: DavidTidman@barnsley.gov.uk (Tidman , David) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:34:57 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Using social networking to promote student engagement Message-ID: <4A4D57D393EB0C4896424FAB74225020013A2F5E20F5@bmbcexch2.bmbcntd.barnsley.gov.uk> --_000_4A4D57D393EB0C4896424FAB74225020013A2F5E20F5bmbcexch2bm_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colleagues It appears that some government departments are promoting the use of social= networking sites such as FaceBook to reach students and engage them in the= ir projects such as healthy activities. Does anyone have any experience of = a local authority engaging in using these type sites to support such activi= ties and how it addressed the safeguarding that arise when using such sites. If colleagues haven't aleady seen this article in the Metro today on school= filtering based on comments by Ofsted, it provides food for thought http://www.metro.co.uk/news/812533-internet-freedom-helps-pupils Regards Dave David Tidman E-Learning Consultant Barnsley MBC 01226 773551/07792 813025 *** Barnsley MBC Disclaimer: This e-mail and any files attached are confidential for the use of the inte= nded recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the= sender as soon as possible and delete the communication from your system w= ithout copying, disseminating or distributing the same in any way by any me= ans. Any views or opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not nece= ssarily represent those of the Council. In particular, the Council will not= accept liability for any defamatory statements made by email communication= s. Recipients are responsible for ensuring that all e-mails and files sent are= checked for viruses. The Council will not accept liability for damage caus= ed by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. No guarantees are offered on th= e security, content and accuracy of any e-mails and files received. Be awar= e that this e-mail communication may be intercepted for regulatory, quality= control, or crime detection purposes unless otherwise prohibited. The content of this email and any attachment may be stored for future refer= ence. --_000_4A4D57D393EB0C4896424FAB74225020013A2F5E20F5bmbcexch2bm_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Colleagues

It appears that some government departments are promot= ing the use of social networking sites such as FaceBook to reach students and engage them in their projects such as healthy activities. Does anyone have = any experience of a local authority engaging in using these type sites to suppo= rt such activities and how it addressed the safeguarding that arise when using such sites.

 

If colleagues haven't aleady seen this article in the = Metro today on school filtering based on comments by Ofsted, it provides food for thought

h= ttp://www.metro.co.uk/news/812533-internet-freedom-helps-pupils

Regards

Dave

 

David Tidman

E-Learning Consultant

Barnsley MBC

01226 773551/07792 813025

 

*** Barnsley MBC Disc= laimer:
This e-mail and any files attached are confidential for the use of the inte= nded recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the= sender as soon as possible and delete the communication from your system w= ithout copying, disseminating or distributing the same in any way by any me= ans.

Any views or opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not nece= ssarily represent those of the Council. In particular, the Council will not= accept liability for any defamatory statements made by email communication= s.
Recipients are responsible for ensuring that all e-mails and files sent are= checked for viruses. The Council will not accept liability for damage caus= ed by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. No guarantees are offered on th= e security, content and accuracy of any e-mails and files received. Be awar= e that this e-mail communication may be intercepted for regulatory, quality= control, or crime detection purposes unless otherwise prohibited.
The content of this email and any attachment may be stored for future refer= ence.

--_000_4A4D57D393EB0C4896424FAB74225020013A2F5E20F5bmbcexch2bm_-- From Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk Thu Feb 11 09:00:01 2010 From: Roger@BroadieAssociates.co.uk (Roger Broadie) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:00:01 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-294--191207295 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Theo, First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re- purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers. The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by the institution itself) - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Roger. On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: > Paul, Colleagues; > > This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance > than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, > Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes > of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to > use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, > determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes > will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future > and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance > learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and > the sharing and development of teacher created resources. > > Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents > it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has > created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions > here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon > for access. > > It think is important we have that debate and I personally look > forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you > suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised > there is no Naace working group on this? > > Best > Theo > > > > > On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford > wrote: > Colleagues > > Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter > Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with > implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the > Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body > responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the > United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals > in part with copyright in education in a digital age. > > We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications > for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a > volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a > Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk > > > > -- > Theo Kuechel > Learning Technology Research > theo.kuechel@gmail.com > T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk > > --Apple-Mail-294--191207295 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul, Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and = probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often = discuss, (including  iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 = applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to = determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital = content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our = learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for = the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT = including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in = digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created = resources.

Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read = the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych = has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions = here, to which we = can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for = access.

It  think is important we have that debate and I = personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and = hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I = am surprised there is no Naace working group on this?

Best
= Theo




On 5 February 2010 = 21:38, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:
=
Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in the latest = Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important = consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know = about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official = government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) = rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and = it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age.

We = firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our = schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer = to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response = to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk
=



--
Theo = Kuechel
Learning Technology Research  
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk
=


= --Apple-Mail-294--191207295-- From crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk Thu Feb 11 10:04:17 2010 From: crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk (Crispin Weston) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:04:17 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> Message-ID: <68D1C08C2CBF4BF7ACB28E41F6004F49@DEVELOPMENT> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01CAAB01.928EA7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Roger, I agree with you on the underlying problem - but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution. The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then going out of the room - it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied hand-outs. I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for "ignore copyright"). The much touted view that the internet was going to end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) - technically, because publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) - in principle, because undermining IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. That is not to say that people, using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by offering advertising or support services) - and this might be a very appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge for the services they provide in one way or another - and we need the involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative products and content. The other issue with the educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected - something like "literary, dramatic or musical works" i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and unimportant source of income to the rights holder. In this respect, we have to question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) - we are going to suck in a digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very complex. So I have two overall comments on Gower: 1) educational exceptions can be applied fairly easily to what I would call "plenary displays" (IWBs and visualisers). 2) I am less sure about "distance learning", which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place a reliable "wall" around educational use and can seamlessly handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex orchestrations of different types of content. Crispin. PS. you need to send an email to Leon, who will give you access to the document. _____ From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Roger Broadie Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00 To: theo kuechel Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education Theo, First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise. However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and publishing. It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in Mexico? The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers. The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education community should do similarly. There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only be defined by the institution itself) - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Roger. On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: Paul, Colleagues; This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and development of teacher created resources. Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here , to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access. It think is important we have that debate and I personally look forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace working group on this? Best Theo On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford wrote: Colleagues Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education in a digital age. We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk -- Theo Kuechel Learning Technology Research theo.kuechel@gmail.com T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01CAAB01.928EA7A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roger, =

 

I agree with you on the = underlying problem – but I am not so sure that I agree with your view of the solution.

 

The reason why Gower focuses on interactive whiteboards (from our point of view, maybe somewhat = perversely) is that Gower is assuming that something displayed on an IWB is not then = going out of the room – it is a plenary display device with a clear boundary = to the group of people who are accessing it. This replicates the conditions = which applied to the display of video in classrooms and (on the basis of low = and rapidly deteriorating quality) to the distribution of photocopied = hand-outs.

 

I do not agree with you that the supplier should now dictate copyright terms (this is really code for = “ignore copyright”). The much touted view that the internet was going to = end intellectual property is untrue, for reasons: (a) – technically, because = publishers are increasingly putting in place DRM protection, (b) because the law is = still the law and from time to time very significant damages are still awarded against file sharers, and (c) – in principle, because undermining = IP would be a disaster which would bring innovation to a screaming halt. =

 

That is not to say that people, = using e.g. creative commons, may elect to give up their IP if they are able to = earn their living some other way (e.g. by occupying a salaried position or by = offering advertising or support services) – and this might be a very = appropriate model for UGC. But the vast majority of businesses still need to charge = for the services they provide in one way or another – and we need the = involvement of industry if we are going to get access to genuinely innovative = products and content.

 

The other issue with the = educational exceptions is the definition of the material which is affected – something like “literary, dramatic or musical works” i.e. educational content is not included. If it were, then all educational = publishers would be put out of business overnight. In other words, the educational exceptions only affect material where education is a tangential and = unimportant source of income to the rights holder.

 

In this respect, we have to = question the distinction (which in this context becomes very important) between = educational and non-educational content. We are no longer going to distribute a = photocopy of Macbeth (literary, not educational) and then have a chat about it (educational but not replicable) – we are going to suck in a = digital version of Macbeth, probably combined with some videos of the latest RSC = production (commercial/dramatic) and comments from other teachers (UGC), into an educational software = programme (commercial educational). The boundaries starts to become very = complex.

 

So I have two overall comments on = Gower:

 

1) educational exceptions can be = applied fairly easily to what I would call “plenary displays” (IWBs = and visualisers).

 

2) I am less sure about = “distance learning”, which is really a synonym for the internet. Even if the = VLE is secure, you cannot then stop the material being copied by students into non-secure environments. From hereon in, educational exceptions are = insufficient without a technical component. We must look to DRM solutions which place = a reliable “wall” around educational use and can seamlessly = handle the authorisation of non-educational content within complex = orchestrations of different types of content.

 

Crispin.<= /p>

 

PS. you need to send an email to = Leon, who will give you access to the document.

 

 

From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Roger = Broadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 = 09:00
To: theo kuechel
Cc: = beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory talk
Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education

 

 

 

Theo,

 

First of all, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for = educational exceptions, I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please advise.

 

However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational = exceptions will deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is because = the concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their own study, = whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purposing for access by = others who will collaboratively reflect upon what the learner has done and = provide afl feedback. There is no substantive difference between this and = publishing.

 

It is also almost impossible to limit use to 'use within an = educational institution' because that must now mean use online by the community of = people involved with promoting learning in the institution, and where does that = stop? Does it include Granny who lives in New = Zealand and the partner school in Mexico?

 

 

The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head = and to state very clearly that material that is not provided with appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored by educators = and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright terms, not the = suppliers.

 

The terms and conditions that you come across in many web = resources are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few. = There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have to be = resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the = copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence nationally. The = whole education community should do similarly.

 

There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that = matter:

 

- you can look at it but not do anything else with = it.

 

- you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of = a an educational institution (but the community of the institution can only = be defined by the institution itself)

 

- it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to = your heart's content provided source is = acknowledged.

 

Roger.

 

 

 

 

On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel = wrote:



Paul, = Colleagues;

This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance than = the many technologies we often discuss, (including  iPads, Interactive = whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of this consultation are = likely to determine how we are allowed to use our digital tools, access digital = content and by default, determine the opportunities we afford our learners. = These outcomes will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable = future and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance learning, = mobile technologies, student work in digital format and the sharing and = development of teacher created resources.

Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents it appears there is some = urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has created a copy of Gower's recommendations = for educational exceptions here, to = which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It  think is important we have that debate and I personally look = forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you suggest, we = can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised there is no Naace = working group on this?

Best
Theo



On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:

Colleagues

Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter = Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with implications for = UK = schools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the = official government body = responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"? = Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals in part with copyright in education = in a digital age.

We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications for = our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a volunteer = to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a Naace response to = the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@naace.co.uk




--
Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research  
theo.kuechel@gmail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk

 

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01CAAB01.928EA7A0-- From ian.lynch@theingots.org Thu Feb 11 12:44:29 2010 From: ian.lynch@theingots.org (ian.lynch@theingots.org) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:44:29 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> Message-ID: <1667.62.24.97.244.1265892269.squirrel@www.theingots.org> > The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and > to state very clearly that material that is not provided with > appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored > by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright > terms, not the suppliers. I think we need to start teaching about copyright and associated licensing much more explicitly. It is the license that really is the issue. Creative Commons is a well established system for licensing things with varying degrees of restriction. Share-alike does what it says on the tin. > The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources > are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a > few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it > will have to be resolved from the user end. If the license issued by the owner of the copyright is restrictive, legally there is nothing end users can do - except not use the products and look for products that have appropriate licenses. For instance, LT Scotland > DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things > they licence nationally. The whole education community should do > similarly. Well, the government could have said it would only accept liberally licensed stuff for Curriculum on-line but it didn't. Government can put pressure on copyright holders but it can't force them to produce stuff under any particular license. > There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: > > - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. > > - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an > educational institution (but the community of the institution can only > be defined by the institution itself) > > - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your > heart's content provided source is acknowledged. Creative Commons licenses are not just as defined above, there are a range of CC licenses to suit different circumstances. The INGOT community site generally uses CC Share alike explanation here might help people new to copyright http://theingots.org/community/legal > Roger. > > > > > On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: > >> Paul, Colleagues; >> >> This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance >> than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, >> Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes >> of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to >> use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, >> determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes >> will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future >> and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance >> learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and >> the sharing and development of teacher created resources. >> >> Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents >> it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has >> created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions >> here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon >> for access. >> >> It think is important we have that debate and I personally look >> forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you >> suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised >> there is no Naace working group on this? >> >> Best >> Theo >> >> >> >> >> On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford >> wrote: >> Colleagues >> >> Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter >> Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with >> implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the >> Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body >> responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the >> United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals >> in part with copyright in education in a digital age. >> >> We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications >> for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a >> volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a >> Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to >> paul.springford@naace.co.uk >> >> >> >> -- >> Theo Kuechel >> Learning Technology Research >> theo.kuechel@gmail.com >> T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk >> >> > > From neil@beaconict.co.uk Thu Feb 11 13:40:39 2010 From: neil@beaconict.co.uk (Neil Adam) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:40:39 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <1667.62.24.97.244.1265892269.squirrel@www.theingots.org> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> <1667.62.24.97.244.1265892269.squirrel@www.theingots.org> Message-ID: <31510a51002110540t391e4625s3aed536f8226ddb2@mail.gmail.com> --0016e6d64109ec5310047f534bcb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Ian One of the great things CC has going for it (as well as licence terms) is the simple system of badges/flags that people can attach to their work One of reasons (and it may not be greatest) that people ride rough-shod over copyright is that they haven't a clue what the license really means. Equally true of music, literature, software EULAs, video etc. It won't solve the copyright problem, but if there were a set of (say) five simple badges at least people might understand (or be without excuse) Neil Neil Adam Beacon ICT Twitter: @NeilAdam www.beaconict.co.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 122 Beacon Road, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 3DQ Mobile 07720 288540 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please note: This email and any attachments are intended only for those in the address list above. If it has come to you by mistake, please let me know, delete the message and any attachments, and please do not forward the material to anyone else. On 11 February 2010 12:44, wrote: > > > The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and > > to state very clearly that material that is not provided with > > appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored > > by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright > > terms, not the suppliers. > > I think we need to start teaching about copyright and associated licensing > much more explicitly. It is the license that really is the issue. Creative > Commons is a well established system for licensing things with varying > degrees of restriction. Share-alike does what it says on the tin. > > > The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources > > are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a > > few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it > > will have to be resolved from the user end. > > If the license issued by the owner of the copyright is restrictive, > legally there is nothing end users can do - except not use the products > and look for products that have appropriate licenses. > > For instance, LT Scotland > > DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things > > they licence nationally. The whole education community should do > > similarly. > > Well, the government could have said it would only accept liberally > licensed stuff for Curriculum on-line but it didn't. Government can put > pressure on copyright holders but it can't force them to produce stuff > under any particular license. > > > There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: > > > > - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. > > > > - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an > > educational institution (but the community of the institution can only > > be defined by the institution itself) > > > > - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your > > heart's content provided source is acknowledged. > > Creative Commons licenses are not just as defined above, there are a range > of CC licenses to suit different circumstances. > > The INGOT community site generally uses CC Share alike explanation here > might help people new to copyright http://theingots.org/community/legal > > > > > Roger. > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: > > > >> Paul, Colleagues; > >> > >> This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance > >> than the many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads, > >> Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes > >> of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to > >> use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, > >> determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes > >> will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future > >> and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance > >> learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and > >> the sharing and development of teacher created resources. > >> > >> Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents > >> it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has > >> created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions > >> here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon > >> for access. > >> > >> It think is important we have that debate and I personally look > >> forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you > >> suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised > >> there is no Naace working group on this? > >> > >> Best > >> Theo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford > >> wrote: > >> Colleagues > >> > >> Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter > >> Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with > >> implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the > >> Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body > >> responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the > >> United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals > >> in part with copyright in education in a digital age. > >> > >> We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications > >> for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a > >> volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a > >> Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to > >> paul.springford@naace.co.uk > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Theo Kuechel > >> Learning Technology Research > >> theo.kuechel@gmail.com > >> T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk > >> > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Advisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org > http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory > To unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the > body text: > > unsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress > > or: send a message to Advisory-request@talk.naace.org > with the body text: > > unsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress > --0016e6d64109ec5310047f534bcb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ian

One of the great things CC has going for it (as w= ell as licence terms) is the simple system of badges/flags that people can = attach to their work

One of reasons (and it may no= t be greatest) that people ride rough-shod over copyright is that they have= n't a clue what the license really means. Equally true of music, litera= ture, software EULAs, video etc.

It won't solve the copyright problem, but if there = were a set of (say) five simple badges at least people might understand (or= be without excuse)

Neil

Neil= Adam
Beacon ICT
Twitter: @NeilAdam
= www.beaconict.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
122 Beacon Road, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 3DQ
Mob= ile 07720 288540
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ple= ase note: =A0This email and any attachments are intended only for those in = the address list above. If it has come to you by mistake, please let me kno= w, delete the message and any attachments, and please do not forward the ma= terial to anyone else.


On 11 February 2010 12:44, <ian.lynch@theingots.or= g> wrote:

> The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and > to state very clearly that material that is not provided with
> appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored=
> by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright > terms, not the suppliers.

I think we need to start teaching about copyright and associated licensing<= br> much more explicitly. It is the license that really is the issue. Creative<= br> Commons is a well established system for licensing things with varying
degrees of restriction. Share-alike does what it says on the tin.

> The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources > are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a > few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it > will have to be resolved from the user end.

If the license issued by the owner of the copyright is restrictive,
legally there is nothing end users can do - except not use the products
and look for products that have appropriate licenses.

=A0For instance, LT Scotland
> DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things
> they licence nationally. The whole education community should do
> similarly.

Well, the government could have said it would only accept liberally
licensed stuff for Curriculum on-line but it didn't. Government can put=
pressure on copyright holders but it can't force them to produce stuff<= br> under any particular license.

> There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter:
>
> - you can look at it but not do anything else with it.
>
> - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an<= br> > educational institution (but the community of the institution can only=
> be defined by the institution itself)
>
> - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your > heart's content provided source is acknowledged.

Creative Commons licenses are not just as defined above, there are a range<= br> of CC licenses to suit different circumstances.

The INGOT community site generally uses CC Share alike explanation here
might help people new to copyright http://theingots.org/community/legal



> Roger.
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote:
>
>> Paul, Colleagues;
>>
>> This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance >> than the many technologies we often discuss, (including =A0iPads,<= br> >> Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcom= es
>> of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to=
>> use our digital tools, access digital content and by default,
>> determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes=
>> will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable futu= re
>> and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance
>> learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and<= br> >> the sharing and development of teacher created resources.
>>
>> Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the docum= ents
>> it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has
>> created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exce= ptions
>> here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon=
>> for access.
>>
>> It =A0think is important we have that debate and I personally look=
>> forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as yo= u
>> suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised<= br> >> there is no Naace working group on this?
>>
>> Best
>> Theo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford
>> <paul.springford@n= aace.org> wrote:
>> Colleagues
>>
>> Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter<= br> >> Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with<= br> >> implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the
>> Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government = body
>> responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the<= br> >> United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation an= d it deals
>> in part with copyright in education in a digital age.
>>
>> We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implication= s
>> for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for= a
>> volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of = a
>> Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to
>> paul.springford@naa= ce.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Theo Kuechel
>> Learning Technology Research
>> theo.kuechel@gmail.com
>> T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk >>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Advisory mailing list Advisory@t= alk.naace.org http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory
To unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the body text:

unsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress

or: send a message to Ad= visory-request@talk.naace.org
with the body text:

unsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress

--0016e6d64109ec5310047f534bcb-- From dfee@btinternet.com Thu Feb 11 14:22:49 2010 From: dfee@btinternet.com (Leon Cych) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:22:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <31510a51002110540t391e4625s3aed536f8226ddb2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <985217.20030.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --0-1661447551-1265898169=:20030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is the CC-Learn Licenses http://learn.creativecommons.org/ Leon Cych --- On Thu, 11/2/10, Neil Adam wrote: From: Neil Adam Subject: Re: [Advisory] Re: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on C= opyright and Education To: "ian.lynch" Cc: "Advisory talk" Date: Thursday, 11 February, 2010, 13:40 Hi Ian One of the great things CC has going for it (as well as licence terms) is t= he simple system of badges/flags that people can attach to their work One of reasons (and it may not be greatest) that people ride rough-shod ove= r copyright is that they haven't a clue what the license really means. Equa= lly true of music, literature, software EULAs, video etc.=0A It won't solve the copyright problem, but if there were a set of (say) five= simple badges at least people might understand (or be without excuse) Neil Neil Adam =0ABeacon ICT Twitter: @NeilAdam www.beaconict.co.uk=20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 122 Beacon Road, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 3DQ Mobile 07720 288540 =0A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please note: =A0This email and any attachments are intended only for those = in the address list above. If it has come to you by mistake, please let me = know, delete the message and any attachments, and please do not forward the= material to anyone else. =0A=0A On 11 February 2010 12:44, wrote: =0A =0A> The only answer is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and =0A> to state very clearly that material that is not provided with =0A> appropriate copyright for use in education, will be completely ignored =0A> by educators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright =0A> terms, not the suppliers. =0A =0AI think we need to start teaching about copyright and associated licensi= ng =0Amuch more explicitly. It is the license that really is the issue. Creati= ve =0ACommons is a well established system for licensing things with varying =0Adegrees of restriction. Share-alike does what it says on the tin. =0A =0A> The terms and conditions that you come across in many web resources =0A> are completely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a =0A> few. There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it =0A> will have to be resolved from the user end. =0A =0AIf the license issued by the owner of the copyright is restrictive, =0Alegally there is nothing end users can do - except not use the products =0Aand look for products that have appropriate licenses. =0A =0A=A0For instance, LT Scotland =0A> DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be for things =0A> they licence nationally. The whole education community should do =0A> similarly. =0A =0AWell, the government could have said it would only accept liberally =0Alicensed stuff for Curriculum on-line but it didn't. Government can put =0Apressure on copyright holders but it can't force them to produce stuff =0Aunder any particular license. =0A =0A> There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter: =0A> =0A> - you can look at it but not do anything else with it. =0A> =0A> - you can copy and re-purpose it within the defined community of a an =0A> educational institution (but the community of the institution can only =0A> be defined by the institution itself) =0A> =0A> - it is creative commons and you can copy and re-purpose it to your =0A> heart's content provided source is acknowledged. =0A =0ACreative Commons licenses are not just as defined above, there are a ran= ge =0Aof CC licenses to suit different circumstances. =0A =0AThe INGOT community site generally uses CC Share alike explanation here =0Amight help people new to copyright http://theingots.org/community/legal =0A =0A =0A =0A> Roger. =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote: =0A> =0A>> Paul, Colleagues; =0A>> =0A>> This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance =0A>> than the many technologies we often discuss, (including =A0iPads, =0A>> Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes =0A>> of this consultation are likely to determine how we are allowed to =0A>> use our digital tools, access digital content and by default, =0A>> determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes =0A>> will shape the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future =0A>> and permeate all educational uses of ICT including distance =0A>> learning, mobile technologies, student work in digital format and =0A>> the sharing and development of teacher created resources. =0A>> =0A>> Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents =0A>> it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has =0A>> created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions =0A>> here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Please email Leon =0A>> for access. =0A>> =0A>> It =A0think is important we have that debate and I personally look =0A>> forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you =0A>> suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am surprised =0A>> there is no Naace working group on this? =0A>> =0A>> Best =0A>> Theo =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul Springford =0A>> wrote: =0A>> Colleagues =0A>> =0A>> Many of you will already have read in the latest Naace newsletter =0A>> Marshal Mateer's article about an important consultation with =0A>> implications for UK schools. Did you already know about the =0A>> Intellectual Property Office (IPO), "the official government body =0A>> responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the =0A>> United Kingdom"? Possibly not. It's their consultation and it deals =0A>> in part with copyright in education in a digital age. =0A>> =0A>> We firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications =0A>> for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a =0A>> volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a =0A>> Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to =0A>> paul.springford@naace.co.uk =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> -- =0A>> Theo Kuechel =0A>> Learning Technology Research =0A>> theo.kuechel@gmail.com =0A>> T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk =0A>> =0A>> =0A> =0A> =0A =0A =0A_______________________________________________ =0AAdvisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org http://talk.naace.org/mm/l= istinfo/advisory =0ATo unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the = body text: =0A =0Aunsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress =0A =0Aor: send a message to Advisory-request@talk.naace.org =0Awith the body text: =0A =0Aunsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress =0A =0A --0-1661447551-1265898169=:20030 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is the CC-Learn Licenses http://learn.c= reativecommons.org/

Leon Cych

--- On Thu, 11/2/10, Neil Ad= am <neil@beaconict.co.uk> wrote:

From: Neil Adam <neil@beaconict.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Adviso= ry] Re: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Educati= on
To: "ian.lynch" <ian.lynch@theingots.org>
Cc: "Advisory talk= " <advisory@talk.naace.org>
Date: Thursday, 11 February, 2010, 13:= 40

Hi Ian

One of the gr= eat things CC has going for it (as well as licence terms) is the simple sys= tem of badges/flags that people can attach to their work

One of reasons (and it may not be greatest) that people ride rough-s= hod over copyright is that they haven't a clue what the license really means. = Equally true of music, literature, software EULAs, video etc.
=0A
=
It won't solve the copyright problem, but if there were a se= t of (say) five simple badges at least people might understand (or be witho= ut excuse)

Neil

Neil Adam
= =0ABeacon ICT
Twitter: @NeilAdam
www.beaconict.co.uk

~~~~~= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
122 Beacon R= oad, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 3DQ
Mobile 07720 288540
=0A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please note: &nbs= p;This email and any attachments are intended only for those in the address= list above. If it has come to you by mistake, please let me know, delete t= he message and any attachments, and please do not forward the material to a= nyone else.
=0A=0A

On 11 February 2010= 12:44, <ian.lynch@theingots.org> wrote:
=0A
=0A> The only answer = is to turn the copyright legislation on its head and
=0A> to state ve= ry clearly that material that is not provided with
=0A> appropriate c= opyright for use in education, will be completely ignored
=0A> by edu= cators and learners. It is time for the users to set copyright
=0A> t= erms, not the suppliers.
=0A
=0AI think we need to start teaching abo= ut copyright and associated licensing
=0Amuch more explicitly. It is the= license that really is the issue. Creative
=0ACommons is a well establi= shed system for licensing things with varying
=0Adegrees of restriction.= Share-alike does what it says on the tin.
=0A
=0A> The terms and = conditions that you come across in many web resources
=0A> are comple= tely unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a
=0A> few. = There is no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it
=0A> w= ill have to be resolved from the user end.
=0A
=0AIf the license issu= ed by the owner of the copyright is restrictive,
=0Alegally there is not= hing end users can do - except not use the products
=0Aand look for prod= ucts that have appropriate licenses.
=0A
=0A For instance, LT Sc= otland
=0A> DICTATE what the copyright terms and conditions will be f= or things
=0A> they licence nationally. The whole education community= should do
=0A> similarly.
=0A
=0AWell, the government could ha= ve said it would only accept liberally
=0Alicensed stuff for Curriculum = on-line but it didn't. Government can put
=0Apressure on copyright holde= rs but it can't force them to produce stuff
=0Aunder any particular lice= nse.
=0A
=0A> There are essentially only 3 copyright terms that ma= tter:
=0A>
=0A> - you can look at it but not do anything else w= ith it.
=0A>
=0A> - you can copy and re-purpose it within the d= efined community of a an
=0A> educational institution (but the commun= ity of the institution can only
=0A> be defined by the institution it= self)
=0A>
=0A> - it is creative commons and you can copy and r= e-purpose it to your
=0A> heart's content provided source is acknowle= dged.
=0A
=0ACreative Commons licenses are not just as defined above,= there are a range
=0Aof CC licenses to suit different circumstances.=0A
=0AThe INGOT community site generally uses CC Share alike explanati= on here
=0Amight help people new to copyright http://theingots.= org/community/legal
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A> Roger.
=0A>=0A>
=0A>
=0A>
=0A> On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo k= uechel wrote:
=0A>
=0A>> Paul, Colleagues;
=0A>>=0A>> This is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significan= ce
=0A>> than the many technologies we often discuss, (including &= nbsp;iPads,
=0A>> Interactive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications or= VLEs); the outcomes
=0A>> of this consultation are likely to dete= rmine how we are allowed to
=0A>> use our digital tools, access di= gital content and by default,
=0A>> determine the opportunities we= afford our learners. These outcomes
=0A>> will shape the future c= ulture of learning for the foreseeable future
=0A>> and permeate a= ll educational uses of ICT including distance
=0A>> learning, mobi= le technologies, student work in digital format and
=0A>> the shar= ing and development of teacher created resources.
=0A>>
=0A>= > Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read the documents
= =0A>> it appears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has<= br>=0A>> created a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational ex= ceptions
=0A>> here, to which we can add comments /annotations. Pl= ease email Leon
=0A>> for access.
=0A>>
=0A>> It=  think is important we have that debate and I personally look
=0A&= gt;> forward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully. as you=
=0A>> suggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am sur= prised
=0A>> there is no Naace working group on this?
=0A>&g= t;
=0A>> Best
=0A>> Theo
=0A>>
=0A>>=0A>>
=0A>>
=0A>> On 5 February 2010 21:38, Paul S= pringford
=0A>> <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:
=0A>> Colle= agues
=0A>>
=0A>> Many of you will already have read in t= he latest Naace newsletter
=0A>> Marshal Mateer's article about an= important consultation with
=0A>> implications for UK schools. Di= d you already know about the
=0A>> Intellectual Property Office (I= PO), "the official government body
=0A>> responsible for granting = Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the
=0A>> United Kingdom"? Po= ssibly not. It's their consultation and it deals
=0A>> in part wit= h copyright in education in a digital age.
=0A>>
=0A>> We= firmly expect that members will wish to discuss the implications
=0A>= ;> for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking for a<= br>=0A>> volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use it as the bas= is of a
=0A>> Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to
= =0A>> paul.springford@naace.co.uk
=0A>>
=0A>>
=0A>&g= t;
=0A>> --
=0A>> Theo Kuechel
=0A>> Learning Te= chnology Research
=0A>> theo.kuechel@gmail.com
=0A>> T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk
=0A>>
=0A= >>
=0A>
=0A>
=0A
=0A
=0A________________________= _______________________
=0AAdvisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory
=0ATo unsubscribe send a= message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the body text:
=0A
=0Auns= ubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress
=0A
=0Aor: send a message to Advisory= -request@talk.naace.org
=0Awith the body text:
=0A
=0Aunsubscr= ibe YourPassword YourEmailAddress
=0A

=0A
--0-1661447551-1265898169=:20030-- From rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk Fri Feb 12 17:30:54 2010 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk (Ray Tolley) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:30:54 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Secure Websites in Plain English Message-ID: <000f01caac09$21780f80$64682e80$@co.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CAAC09.21780F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.commoncraft.com/secure-websites-video Another one that might be useful! Ray Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, MBILD ICT Education Consultant Maximise ICT Ltd P: http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/ B: http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/ W: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CAAC09.21780F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.comm= oncraft.com/secure-websites-video

 

Another one that might be useful!

 

Ray Tolley  FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, = MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT Ltd

P:  http://raytolley.v2efoliowor= ld.mnscu.edu/

B:  ht= tp://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/

W:  http://www.maximise-ict.co.u= k/eFolio-01.htm

Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award = 2009'

 

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CAAC09.21780F80-- From irene@cumbria14-19.org.uk Sun Feb 14 12:26:03 2010 From: irene@cumbria14-19.org.uk (Irene Krechowiecka) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:26:03 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] itouch and mifi Message-ID: --00504502d361d2aeef047f8e9b69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm planning a trial around itouch use with our 14-19 learners and would greatly appreciate some contact with anyone who has been using itouch in a school or college setting. One of the uses we hope to explore is using an itouch when on the move between partner providers. We will be experimenting with connected and non connected devices, where some learners just use apps that don't require an internet connections. For others we hope to try the Three Mifi alongside the itouch. Would appreciate insights for anyone who has used the itouch and anyone who has used Mifi Thanks Irene Krechowiecka -- Irene Krechowiecka e-learning co-ordinator Cumbria 14-19 Partnership http://twitter.com/Parentdipinfo --00504502d361d2aeef047f8e9b69 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm planning =A0a trial around itouch use with our 14-19 learners and w= ould greatly appreciate some contact with anyone who has been using itouch = in a school or college setting. One of the uses we hope to explore is using= an itouch when on the move between partner providers. We will be experimen= ting with connected and non connected devices, where some learners just use= apps that don't require an internet connections. For others we hope to= try the Three Mifi alongside the itouch.

Would appreciate insights for anyone who has used the itouch= and anyone who has used Mifi

Thanks
Ire= ne Krechowiecka

--
Irene Krechowiecka
e-learnin= g co-ordinator
Cumbria 14-19 Partnership
h= ttp://twitter.com/Parentdipinfo




--00504502d361d2aeef047f8e9b69-- From Peter.Kent@act.gov.au Mon Feb 8 22:46:42 2010 From: Peter.Kent@act.gov.au (Kent, Peter) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:46:42 +1100 Subject: [Advisory] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> References: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAA910.95AF74B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you ask me the continuum is in the way individuals acquire ICT skills, not the skills themselves. I wrote a chapter about this is the book Learning with ICT (Macmillian Australia). The perceived difference between 'digital immigrants' and 'digital natives' is not their age, it is a more how far they have progressed along this continuum. =20 Cheers =20 Peter ________________________________ From: Ray Tolley [mailto:rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk]=20 Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2010 9:27 AM To: 'Mal Lee' Cc: advisory@talk.naace.org; secondary@talk.naace.org Subject: RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax =20 Mal, =20 It all depends on how you define 'Continuum' and how you define 'Competency'. =20 If by 'Continuum' you mean that 'All 11yr-olds should be able to do this, this and this.' And at 12-yrs old they should additionally be able to do that and that.' And by 13yrs old they should all be able to do, 'The other and the other.' Then I would agree with you. However, if we believe in personal learning plans (PLPs) then perhaps we can say/negotiate for each individual, "Your target for this week/term/year should be..." And these should be written in terms of processes rather than competencies but still leaving room for the unexpected. If not set as actual targets (and even these allow for adjustments) then at least the continuum can be seen as a track-record, an audit trail or 'breadcrumbs'. As professionals we often suggest considering, "Where are we now? Where do we want to get to? How will we get there? and How will we know when we have arrived?" (Accepting that learning never really stops.) If such a planning strategy (or continuum) is appropriate for us as professionals why should we not share such approaches with our children and their parents? =20 Again, 'Competency' should not be thought of in terms of practical abilities such as 'cut and paste', 'insert page numbering' or 'write a conditional IF statement'. This went out of UK thinking almost ten years ago! Competencies are about processes, such as 'plan a strategy in order to...', 'negotiate with a partner how to share a workload', 'design a presentation to challenge conventional ideas concerning...', 'or 'investigate the historical causes of...' =20 The need to learn technical skills then becomes purpose driven as I suggest in one of my presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/maximise/planning-my-learning =20 Best Wishes, =20 Ray Tolley FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, MBILD ICT Education Consultant Maximise ICT Ltd P: http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/ =20 B: http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/ =20 W: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm =20 Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' =20 From: Mal Lee [mailto:mal.lee@netspeed.com.au]=20 Sent: 07 February 2010 23:18 To: Glenn Finger; Mike Gaffney; Arthur Winzenried; Jason Zagami; Damian Maher; Phil Roberts; Karen Bonanno; Lyn Hay; Judy Parr; lorrae@cyperus.co.nz; Martin Levins; Peter Kent; Allan Shaw; Roger Hayward; Ray Tolley; John Hodgkinson; Tony Brandenburg Subject: The ICT Continuum Hoax =20 The ICT Continuum Hoax? =20 Hi =20 One for all you wise owls. =20 The question mark is important. =20 As you'll be aware schools and education authorities across the world have developed curriculum documents called ICT continuum that guide teachers across the school/s in their development of the students' ICT' competencies. =20 In a number of situations the continuum also provides the base for much publicized state/provincial testing and reporting of ICT competence. =20 The continuum purport to describe the developmental phases in the young peoples' acquisition of the ICT competencies. =20 In turn they serve as a guide to teachers shaping their teaching program. =20 I have to admit I've some very real concerns about the validity of the exercise, and am moved to ask if the practice is not a hoax. =20 The first major concern revolves around the term 'ICT' and the implicit assumption that that term describes an established and clearly defined field of study, like Mathematics or Physics. =20 Any Google search will soon show the fallacy of that assumption, with the term varying in meaning from the very narrow, where it is used synonymously with the term computer, to the very broad where it is used to refer to all forms of information and communications technology, analogue and digital. =20 In the education context the meaning of the term is further confused because it covers only the 'approved' types of information and communications technology, and most assuredly does not include the likes of mobile or cell phones, iPods, digital cameras or games consoles or indeed those ever-emerging highly convergent entities like smartphones that integrate all the aforementioned functions. =20 And yet with all this uncertainty and nebulous theoretical base some very astute 'digital immigrants' have been able to identify and construct 'ICT continuum' that all teachers must follow. =20 The second major concern is the seeming lack of research validating the current continuum. =20 =20 Do any of you know of the research underpinning such continuum? =20 I admit to not seeing anything. =20 Who is the Jean Piaget who has identified the developmental phases and key attributes on which to develop such a curriculum document? =20 Why is the content of the formal continuum at such variance to the kind of competencies shown by the young outside the classroom? =20 It is when one encounters the kind of observation below by an adjunct professor of education that one becomes concerned, and is obliged to question the educational validity of using such a nebulous and dated term as ICT and in turn for school authorities to continue with the present ICT continuum. =20 =20 "Young people appear to use technology in ways that are different to most of their teachers and parents. Adults (depending on their age) typically use Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as functional tools that are used for practical or business purposes." (McGrath, 2009, p2) =20 =20 One wonders what place digital TVs, DVD players, digital cameras, car radios, iPods, iTunes, 'web enabled phones, Skype, games consoles and the social networking facilities occupy in her definition of ICT. =20 =20 It would be great for researchers of Piaget's capability to identify the developmental phases in the acquisition of ever changing, ever evolving competencies and attitudes that emanate from the young's all pervasive use of an ever evolving suite of digital technologies but one senses that is still some time off? =20 =20 Are we currently perpetuating a hoax by continuing to: =20 a. use the term 'ICT' =20 b. validate the use of the current 'ICT continuum =20 Kind regards =20 Mal Lee PO Box 5010, Broulee, NSW, Australia + 61 2 44 717 947=20 =20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the = sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any = attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, = nor disclose its contents to any other person. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAA910.95AF74B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If you ask me the continuum is in = the way individuals acquire ICT skills, not the skills themselves.  I wrote = a chapter about this is the book Learning with ICT (Macmillian = Australia).  The perceived difference between ‘digital immigrants’ and = ‘digital natives’ is not their age, it is a more how far they have = progressed along this continuum.

 

Cheers

 

Peter

From: Ray Tolley [mailto:rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 February = 2010 9:27 AM
To: 'Mal Lee'
Cc: = advisory@talk.naace.org; secondary@talk.naace.org
Subject: RE: The ICT = Continuum Hoax

 

Mal,

 <= /o:p>

It all = depends on how you define ‘Continuum’ and how you define ‘Competency’.

 <= /o:p>

If by ‘Continuum’ you mean that ‘All 11yr-olds should be = able to do this, this and this.’ And at 12-yrs old they should additionally = be able to do that and that.’  And by 13yrs old they should all be = able to do, ‘The other and the other.’  Then I would agree with you.  However,  if we believe in personal learning plans = (PLPs) then perhaps we can say/negotiate for each individual,  “Your = target for this week/term/year should be...”  And these should be = written in terms of processes rather than competencies but still leaving room for = the unexpected.  If not set as actual targets (and even these allow for adjustments)  then at least the continuum can be seen as a = track-record, an audit trail or ‘breadcrumbs’.  As professionals we = often suggest considering, “Where are we now?  Where do we want to = get to?  How will we get there? and How will we know when we have arrived?”  (Accepting that learning never really = stops.)  If such a planning strategy (or continuum) is appropriate for us as = professionals  why should we not share such approaches with our children and their = parents?

 <= /o:p>

Again, ‘Competency’ should not be thought of in terms of practical abilities such as ‘cut and paste’, ‘insert page numbering’ or ‘write a conditional IF = statement’.  This went out of UK thinking almost ten years ago!  Competencies are about processes, = such as ‘plan a strategy in order to...’,  ‘negotiate = with a partner how to share a workload’,  ‘design a = presentation to challenge conventional ideas concerning...’, ‘or = ‘investigate the historical causes of...’

 <= /o:p>

The need to = learn technical skills then becomes purpose driven as I suggest in one of my presentations:

http://w= ww.slideshare.net/maximise/planning-my-learning

 <= /o:p>

Best = Wishes,

 <= /o:p>

Ray = Tolley  FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, ACQI, = MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT = Ltd

P:  = http://raytolley.v2efoliowor= ld.mnscu.edu/

B:  = http://www.efoliointheuk.blo= gspot.com/

W:  = http://www.maximise-ict.co.u= k/eFolio-01.htm

Winner of the = IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009'

 <= /o:p>

From: Mal Lee [mailto:mal.lee@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: 07 February 2010 = 23:18
To: Glenn Finger; Mike = Gaffney; Arthur Winzenried; Jason Zagami; Damian Maher; Phil Roberts; Karen = Bonanno; Lyn Hay; Judy Parr; lorrae@cyperus.co.nz; Martin Levins; Peter Kent; Allan = Shaw; Roger Hayward; Ray Tolley; John Hodgkinson; Tony Brandenburg
Subject: The ICT = Continuum Hoax

 

The ICT Continuum = Hoax?

 

Hi

 

One for all you wise owls.

 

The question mark is = important.

 

As you’ll be aware schools and = education authorities across the world have developed curriculum documents called = ICT continuum that guide teachers across the school/s in their development = of the students’ ICT' competencies.

 

In a number of situations the continuum = also provides the base for much publicized state/provincial testing and = reporting of ICT competence.

 

The continuum purport to describe the developmental phases in the young peoples’ acquisition of the ICT competencies.

 

In turn they serve as a guide to = teachers shaping their teaching program.

 

I have to admit I’ve some very = real concerns about the validity of the exercise, and am moved to ask if the practice is not a hoax.

 

The first major concern revolves around = the term ‘ICT’ and the implicit assumption that that term = describes an established and clearly defined field of study, like Mathematics or = Physics.

 

Any Google search will soon show the = fallacy of that assumption, with the term varying in meaning from the very narrow, = where it is used synonymously with the term computer, to the very broad where = it is used to refer to all forms of information and communications
technology, analogue and digital.

 

In the education context the meaning of = the term is further confused because it covers only the = ‘approved’ types of information and communications technology, and most assuredly = does not include the likes of mobile or cell phones, iPods, digital cameras or = games consoles or
indeed those ever-emerging highly convergent entities like smartphones = that
integrate all the aforementioned functions.

 

And yet with all this uncertainty and = nebulous theoretical base some very astute ‘digital immigrants’ have = been able to identify and construct ‘ICT continuum’ that all = teachers must follow.

 

The second major concern is the seeming = lack of research validating the current continuum.

 

 

Do any of you know of = the research underpinning such continuum?

 

I admit to not seeing = anything.

 

Who is the Jean Piaget = who has identified the developmental phases and key attributes on which to = develop such a curriculum document?

 

Why is the content of the formal = continuum at such variance to the kind of competencies shown by the young outside the classroom?

 

It is when one encounters the kind of observation below by an adjunct professor of education that one becomes concerned, and is obliged to question the educational validity of using = such a nebulous and dated term as ICT and in turn for school authorities to = continue
with the present ICT continuum.

 

 

“Young people appear to use technology in ways that are = different to most of their teachers and parents. Adults (depending on their age) typically use Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) as functional tools that are used = for
practical or business purposes.” (McGrath, 2009, = p2)

 

 

One wonders what place digital TVs, DVD players, digital cameras, car radios, iPods, iTunes, ‘web enabled = phones, Skype, games consoles and the social networking facilities occupy in her definition of ICT.

 

 

It would be great for researchers of = Piaget’s capability to identify the developmental phases in the acquisition of = ever changing, ever evolving competencies and attitudes that emanate from the = young’s all pervasive use of an ever evolving suite of digital technologies = but
one senses that is still some time off?

 

 

Are we currently perpetuating a hoax by continuing to:

 

a.     use the term = ‘ICT’

 

b.     validate the use of = the current ‘ICT continuum

 

Kind = regards

 

Mal = Lee

PO = Box = 5010, Broulee, NSW, Australia<= /font>

+ 61 2 44 = 717 947

 <= /o:p>

 

 

 =20

------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

This email, and = any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, = please notify the sender and delete all = copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. = You should not copy or use it for any = purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.

------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

------_=_NextPart_001_01CAA910.95AF74B0-- From Jo.Puckering@cambridgeshire.gov.uk Thu Feb 11 14:24:09 2010 From: Jo.Puckering@cambridgeshire.gov.uk (Puckering Jo) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:24:09 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] RE: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright and Education In-Reply-To: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> References: <16F87465-D859-4F26-8D77-1E680771EDBB@BroadieAssociates.co.uk> Message-ID: <781BF4F6F555B8488D5B382FAD0679730BCECD88@cccs075.CCC.Cambridgeshire.gov.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAAB25.E0495956 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I personally feel that educators of all ages of learners should be=0D=0Arai= sing awareness that 'intellectual property' is exactly that, the=0D=0Aprope= rty of someone else and as such should be cited in some age=0D=0Aappropriat= e manner, rather than claiming it to have been ones own work=0D=0Aand rathe= r than using the excuse of education exceptions. =20=0D=0A=20=0D=0AYou can = easily access the full review as a pdf document here:=0D=0Ahttp://www.ipo.g= ov.uk/policy/policy-issues/policy-issues-gowers/policy-i=0D=0Assues-gowersr= eport.htm=0D=0A=20=0D=0AI would recommend using a keyword search for 'educa= tion' - it is=0D=0Ainteresting to note a number of comments on educational = use, not just=0D=0Arely on the educational exceptions.=0D=0A=20=0D=0AMay I = also add to Rogers' comment " it is creative commons and you can=0D=0Acopy = and re-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is=0D=0Aacknowled= ged" that Creative Commons have their own grading of 4=0D=0Alicenses. Thi= s and more information is available online from=0D=0Ahttp://www.creativecom= mons.org.uk/:=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=0D=0A*=09Attribution (by): Licensees may copy,= distribute, display and=0D=0Aperform the work and make derivative works ba= sed on it only if they give=0D=0Athe author or licensor the credits in the = manner specified by these.=0D=0A*=09Noncommercial or NonCommercial (nc): Li= censees may copy,=0D=0Adistribute, display, and perform the work and make d= erivative works=0D=0Abased on it only for noncommercial=0D=0A purposes.=0D=0A*=09No Derivative Works=0D=0A= or NoDerivs (nd):=0D=0ALi= censees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies=0D=0A= of the work, not derivative works based on it.=0D=0A*=09ShareAlike (sa): Li= censees may distribute derivative works only=0D=0Aunder a license identical= to the license that governs the original work.=0D=0A(See also copyleft .)=0D=0A=0D=0ARegards=0D=0A=20=0D=0AJo= Puckering=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=0D=0A=0D=0AFrom: primary-a= dmin@talk.naace.org [mailto:primary-admin@talk.naace.org]=0D=0AOn Behalf Of= Roger Broadie=0D=0ASent: 11 February 2010 09:00=0D=0ATo: theo kuechel=0D=0A= Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org; secondary; Advisory=0D=0A= talk=0D=0ASubject: [Primary] Re: [Secondary] UK Consultation on Copyright a= nd=0D=0AEducation=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0ATheo,=0D=0A=0D=0AFirst of al= l, I cannot access Gower's recommendations for educational=0D=0Aexceptions,= I can't get at it through my usual Google docs logon. Please=0D=0Aadvise.=0D= =0A=0D=0AHowever, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educational exceptio= ns=0D=0Awill deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. This is beca= use=0D=0Athe concept of 'educational use' was single person use for their o= wn=0D=0Astudy, whereas education use now largely means copying and re-purpo= sing=0D=0Afor access by others who will collaboratively reflect upon what t= he=0D=0Alearner has done and provide afl feedback. There is no substantive=0D= =0Adifference between this and publishing.=0D=0A=0D=0AIt is also almost imp= ossible to limit use to 'use within an educational=0D=0Ainstitution' becaus= e that must now mean use online by the community of=0D=0Apeople involved wi= th promoting learning in the institution, and where=0D=0Adoes that stop=3F = Does it include Granny who lives in New Zealand and the=0D=0Apartner school= in Mexico=3F=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0AThe only answer is to turn the copyrig= ht legislation on its head and to=0D=0Astate very clearly that material tha= t is not provided with appropriate=0D=0Acopyright for use in education, wil= l be completely ignored by educators=0D=0Aand learners. It is time for the = users to set copyright terms, not the=0D=0Asuppliers.=0D=0A=0D=0AThe terms = and conditions that you come across in many web resources are=0D=0Acomplete= ly unworkable for schools and learners. Try looking at a few.=0D=0AThere is= no way this can be resolved from the supplier end, it will have=0D=0Ato be= resolved from the user end. For instance, LT Scotland DICTATE what=0D=0Ath= e copyright terms and conditions will be for things they licence=0D=0Anatio= nally. The whole education community should do similarly.=0D=0A=0D=0AThere = are essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter:=0D=0A=0D=0A- you can lo= ok at it but not do anything else with it.=0D=0A=0D=0A- you can copy and re= -purpose it within the defined community of a an=0D=0Aeducational instituti= on (but the community of the institution can only=0D=0Abe defined by the in= stitution itself)=0D=0A=0D=0A- it is creative commons and you can copy and = re-purpose it to your=0D=0Aheart's content provided source is acknowledged.=0D= =0A=0D=0ARoger.=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0AOn 10 Feb 2010, at 11:15, theo= kuechel wrote:=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=09Paul, Colleagues;=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09This= is very timely, urgent and probably of greater significance=0D=0Athan the = many technologies we often discuss, (including iPads,=0D=0AInteractive whi= teboards, Web 2.0 applications or VLEs); the outcomes of=0D=0Athis consulta= tion are likely to determine how we are allowed to use our=0D=0Adigital too= ls, access digital content and by default, determine the=0D=0Aopportunities= we afford our learners. These outcomes will shape the=0D=0Afuture culture = of learning for the foreseeable future and permeate all=0D=0Aeducational us= es of ICT including distance learning, mobile=0D=0Atechnologies, student wo= rk in digital format and the sharing and=0D=0Adevelopment of teacher create= d resources.=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09Having read Marshall's synopsis and then the = re-read the=0D=0Adocuments it appears there is some urgent work to be done.= Leon Cych has=0D=0Acreated a copy of Gower's recommendations for education= al exceptions=0D=0Ahere , to which we can add comments= /annotations.=0D=0APlease email Leon for acce= ss.=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09It think is important we have that debate and I perso= nally look=0D=0Aforward to reading the Nacce community views, and hopefully= =2E as you=0D=0Asuggest, we can start to develop a Naace response. I am sur= prised there=0D=0Ais no Naace working group on this=3F=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09Bes= t=0D=0A=09Theo=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09On 5 Fe= bruary 2010 21:38, Paul Springford=0D=0A wrote:=0D= =0A=09=0D=0A=0D=0A=09=09Colleagues=0D=0A=09=09=0D=0A=09=09Many of you will = already have read in the latest Naace=0D=0Anewsletter Marshal Mateer's arti= cle about an important consultation with=0D=0Aimplications for UK schools. = Did you already know about the Intellectual=0D=0AProperty Office (IPO), "th= e official government body responsible for=0D=0Agranting Intellectual Prope= rty (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"=3F=0D=0APossibly not. It's their con= sultation and it deals in part with=0D=0Acopyright in education in a digita= l age.=0D=0A=09=09=0D=0A=09=09We firmly expect that members will wish to di= scuss the=0D=0Aimplications for our schools and colleges here on Naacetalk.= We are=0D=0Alooking for a volunteer to coordinate the discussion and use i= t as the=0D=0Abasis of a Naace response to the IPO. Any offers please to=0D= =0Apaul.springford@naace.co.uk=0D=0A=09=09=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=09= --=20=0D=0A=09Theo Kuechel=0D=0A=09Learning Technology Research =20=0D=0A=09= theo.kuechel@gmail.com=0D=0A=09T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk=0D=0A=09=0D=0A=09=0D=0A= =09=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0AThe information in this email is confidential and may= be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you rec= eive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediat= ely. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily = represent the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and recei= ved email from Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned for t= he presence of computer viruses and security issues. = = =20=0D=0A=0D=0AVisit www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk=0D=0A ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAAB25.E0495956 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D=0A<= HEAD>=0D=0A=0D=0A<= /HEAD>=0D=0A=0D=0A
I personally feel that educators of all ages of=20=0D= =0Alearners should be raising awareness that 'intellectual property' i= s=20=0D=0Aexactly that, the property of someone else and as such should be = cited in some=20=0D=0Aage appropriate manner, rather than claiming it to ha= ve been ones own work and=20=0D=0Arather than using the excuse of education= exceptions. 
=0D=0A
 
=0D=0A
You can easily access the full=20=0D=0Areview as a pdf= document here:
=0D=0A
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/policy-issues-= gowers/policy-issues-gowersreport.htm
=0D=0A
 
=0D=0A
I would recommend usin= g a keyword=20=0D=0Asearch for 'education' - it is interesting to note a nu= mber of comments on=20=0D=0Aeducational use, not just rely on the education= al=20=0D=0Aexceptions.
=0D=0A
 
=0D=0A
May I also add to Rogers' comment " it is creative commons and you can= copy and=20=0D=0Are-purpose it to your heart's content provided source is = acknowledged"  t= hat Creative Commons have their own=20=0D=0Agrading of 4 licenses.  Th= is and more information is available online from=20=0D=0Ahttp://www.creativecommons.org.uk/= :
=0D=0A
 
=0D=0A
=0D=0A

=0D=0A
    =0D=0A
  • Attribution (by): Licensees ma= y copy, distribute, display and=20=0D=0A perform the work and make derivat= ive works based on it only if they give the=20=0D=0A author or licensor th= e credits in the manner specified by these.
    • =0D=0A
  • Noncommercia= l or NonCommercial (nc): Licensees may copy,=20=0D=0A distribut= e, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on=20=0D=0A= it only for noncommercial purposes.
    • =0D=0A
  • No De= rivative Works or NoDerivs (nd):=20=0D=0A Licensees may cop= y, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of=20=0D=0A the wo= rk, not derivative works based on it.
    • =0D=0A
  • ShareAlike (sa= ): Licensees may distribute derivative works only=20=0D=0A under a license= identical to the license that governs the original work. (See=20=0D=0A al= so copyleft.)<= /LI>
=0D=0A
<= FONT face=3DHumanist521BT-Bold size=3D2>Regards
=0D=0A
 
=0D=0AJo=20=0D=0A= Puckering=0D=0A

=0D=0A
=0D=0A
=0D=0AFrom: primary-admin@talk.na= ace.org=20=0D=0A[mailto:primary-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of R= oger=20=0D=0ABroadie
Sent: 11 February 2010 09:00
To: t= heo=20=0D=0Akuechel
Cc: beyond@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace= =2Eorg; secondary;=20=0D=0AAdvisory talk
Subject: [Primary] Re: [= Secondary] UK Consultation on=20=0D=0ACopyright and Education
=0D=0A
=0D=0A

=0D=0A

=0D=0ATheo,=0D=0A

=0D=0A
First of all, I cannot access = Gower's recommendations for educational=20=0D=0Aexceptions, I can't get at = it through my usual Google docs logon. Please=20=0D=0Aadvise.
=0D=0A
=0D=0A
However, I will be extremely surprised if ANY educa= tional exceptions will=20=0D=0Adeal with the situation we now find ourselve= s in. This is because the concept of=20=0D=0A'educational use' was single p= erson use for their own study, whereas education=20=0D=0Ause now largely me= ans copying and re-purposing for access by others who will=20=0D=0Acollabor= atively reflect upon what the learner has done and provide afl feedback. =0D= =0AThere is no substantive difference between this and publishing.
=0D= =0A

=0D=0A
It is also almost impossible to limit use to '= use within an educational=20=0D=0Ainstitution' because that must now mean u= se online by the community of people=20=0D=0Ainvolved with promoting learni= ng in the institution, and where does that stop=3F=20=0D=0ADoes it include = Granny who lives in New Zealand and the partner school in=20=0D=0AMexico=3F=
=0D=0A

<= /DIV>=0D=0A

=0D=0A
The only answer is to turn the copyrig= ht legislation on its head and to=20=0D=0Astate very clearly that material = that is not provided with appropriate copyright=20=0D=0Afor use in educatio= n, will be completely ignored by educators and learners. It=20=0D=0Ais time= for the users to set copyright terms, not the suppliers.
=0D=0A
<= BR>
=0D=0A
The terms and conditions that you come across in many w= eb resources are=20=0D=0Acompletely unworkable for schools and learners. Tr= y looking at a few. There is=20=0D=0Ano way this can be resolved from the s= upplier end, it will have to be resolved=20=0D=0Afrom the user end. For ins= tance, LT Scotland DICTATE what the copyright terms=20=0D=0Aand conditions = will be for things they licence nationally. The whole education=20=0D=0Acom= munity should do similarly.
=0D=0A

=0D=0A
There are = essentially only 3 copyright terms that matter:
=0D=0A

=0D= =0A
- you can look at it but not do anything else with it.
=0D=0A<= DIV>
=0D=0A
- you can copy and re-purpose it within the define= d community of a an=20=0D=0Aeducational institution (but the community of t= he institution can only be=20=0D=0Adefined by the institution itself)
=0D= =0A

=0D=0A
- it is creative commons and you can copy and = re-purpose it to your heart's=20=0D=0Acontent provided source is acknowledg= ed.
=0D=0A

=0D=0A
Roger.
=0D=0A

=0D= =0A

=0D=0A


=0D=0A
=0D=0A
On 10 Feb = 2010, at 11:15, theo kuechel wrote:
=0D=0A
Paul, Colleagues;

This i= s very timely, urgent=20=0D=0A and probably of greater significance than t= he many technologies we often=20=0D=0A discuss, (including  iPads, In= teractive whiteboards, Web 2.0 applications=20=0D=0A or VLEs); the outcome= s of this consultation are likely to determine how we are=20=0D=0A allowed= to use our digital tools, access digital content and by default,=20=0D=0A = determine the opportunities we afford our learners. These outcomes will sh= ape=20=0D=0A the future culture of learning for the foreseeable future and= permeate all=20=0D=0A educational uses of ICT including distance learning= , mobile technologies,=20=0D=0A student work in digital format and the sha= ring and development of teacher=20=0D=0A created resources.

Having = read Marshall's synopsis and then the re-read=20=0D=0A the documents it ap= pears there is some urgent work to be done. Leon Cych has=20=0D=0A created= a copy of Gower's recommendations for educational exceptions here, to which we can add= comments=20=0D=0A /annotations. Please email Leon for access.

It  = think is important we have=20=0D=0A that debate and I personally look forw= ard to reading the Nacce community=20=0D=0A views, and hopefully. as you s= uggest, we can start to develop a Naace=20=0D=0A response. I am surprised = there is no Naace working group on=20=0D=0A this=3F

Best
Theo



=0D=0A
On 5 February 2010 21:3= 8, Paul Springford <paul.springford@naace.org> wrote:
=0D=0A
Colleagues

Many=20=0D=0A of you will already= have read in the latest Naace newsletter Marshal=20=0D=0A Mateer's arti= cle about an important consultation with implications for UK=20=0D=0A sc= hools. Did you already know about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), =0D= =0A "the official government body responsible for granting Intell= ectual=20=0D=0A Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom"=3F Possibly = not. It's their=20=0D=0A consultation and it deals in part with copyrigh= t in education in a digital=20=0D=0A age.

We firmly expect that m= embers will wish to discuss the=20=0D=0A implications for our schools an= d colleges here on Naacetalk. We are looking=20=0D=0A for a volunteer to= coordinate the discussion and use it as the basis of a=20=0D=0A Naace r= esponse to the IPO. Any offers please to paul.springford@na= ace.co.uk


-- Theo Kuechel
Learning Technology Research  
theo.kuechel@gm= ail.com
T.Kuechel@hull.ac.uk





The = ;information in this email is confidential an= d  may be legally privileged. It is = ;intended solely for the addressee. If you&nb= sp;receive this email by mistake please  = ;notify the sender and delete it immediately.=  Opinions expressed are those of the ind= ividual and do not necessarily  represent&nbs= p;the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council.&nb= sp;All sent and received email from Cambridge= shire County Council is automatically scanned = ;for the presence of computer viruses and&nbs= p;security issues.        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         
=0D=0A
=0D= =0AVisit www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk
=0D=0A= ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAAB25.E0495956--