From gareth@advisorymatters.co.uk Wed Mar 10 17:05:38 2010 From: gareth@advisorymatters.co.uk (Gareth Davies) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:05:38 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] News of Barry Joyce Message-ID: <4B97D162.7000704@gmail.com> All, A few will know that my retired colleague Barry Joyce has a serious accident in the weekend after half term. Barry went to stay with friends in the French Pyrenees, and while walking (actually putting on some over-trousers) he fell into a gully, a drop of around 35-40ft. He survived it but was pretty beat up with most of his ribs broken on his right side and a fractured pelvis. I'm sure those that know Barry will want to wish him a speedy recovery. He is now well enough to be air ambulanced home in the next few days and to be communicating with me via email. Rather than everyone asking how he is via email, and him having to respond individually he has asked me to set up a blog for him to 'tell the whole story' and allow friends, colleagues and well wishers to respond via comments. The blog can be found here: http://barryjoyce.org/accident/ He'll be posting regular updates on progress as well as filling in the gaps over the last two weeks retrospectively. You'll need to register first and your first comment will be moderated. Please pass on to anyone that you might know and will want to wish him their best. Gareth -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Davies, Principal Adviser Advisory Matters, 38 Oulton Street Oulton Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 3BB Tel: +44(0)845 5440760, Fax: +44(0)845 5440780 www.advisorymatters.co.uk gareth@advisorymatters.co.uk VAT no: GB 981425213 Registered in England, No 7042351 Registered office: 38 Oulton Street, Oulton, Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 3BB, UK From ianrlynch@googlemail.com Wed Mar 10 21:52:49 2010 From: ianrlynch@googlemail.com (Ian Lynch) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:52:49 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: References: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> Message-ID: > 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! Dictionary definition The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified; ability. See Synonyms at ability. A specific range of skill, knowledge, or ability. > 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...’ I'd say competencies are fundamentally about outcome more than process. A competent person achieves the desired outcome. The process is subordinate to that but could well determine the efficiency at which the outcome is achieved. > The need to learn technical skills then becomes purpose driven as I suggest It seems to me that it would be an unusual rather than a typical case that considered technical skills outside some meaningful context although there could be some merit in practising a technical skill on its own. There are many examples. eg, Jonny Wilkinson practising goal kicking outside a rugby match, a child learning multiplication tables, a musician practising scales. What matters is the right balance to get the outcome for a particular learner and that might well vary from person to person. The danger is the teacher assuming that because they personally do or don't like a method that any particular learner is going to think the same way. > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk Thu Mar 11 13:26:10 2010 From: crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk (Crispin Weston) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:26:10 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: References: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> Message-ID: <95BBFBADCDF2461C9F7C1DAA9F52E12B@DEVELOPMENT> Ah-ha! The very interesting question of competencies. I think this is an important discussion because we have yet to create an acceptable way of codifying competencies (a key pre-requisite for many new learning technologies, including portfolios and systems for managing differentiation and remediation automatically). I hope someone from QDCA is listening in. I agree with Ian that competency is connected to outcome. But I would go further and define it along the following lines: A characteristic which was predictive of a person's ability to achieve a range of desirable outcomes. If you say that someone is "good at tennis" you are predicting that he will beat someone who you say is "bad at tennis". If you say the two people are good and bad respectively at racket sports, then you would predict the outcome of matches in tennis, squash and ping pong and even some new racket game which hasn't been invented yet. This last point is important, because: a) competencies are transferrable (which is why employers recruit graduates, even though they know nothing about the business in which they are being employed); b) the nature of the competency cannot be defined exclusively by the range of outcomes of which it is taken at any particular point in time to be predictive. In other words, competency is abstract. The transferability of a competency is crucial. If you define a competency very narrowly, as I understand a lot of vocational courses do, to say "saw a piece of wood in half" and you demonstrate the competency by performing the action, then all you get to show is that we know that x can saw a piece of wood in half because he has been observed sawing a piece of wood in half. (In fact, it might have been a fluke - he should really be observed performing the action several times in several different contexts). But the main point I am making is that these very concrete, yes/no competencies are in fact tautological: they say nothing. In order to *infer* an abstract competency, you must observe a range of concrete performances which achieve defined outcomes, preferably performed repeatedly in a range of different contexts. These observed performances, the leaves on the competency tree if you like, I would call "capabilities". You could then say that if someone demonstrated a range of capabilities, from sawing to screwing to drilling to sanding etc. you could *infer* a competency at "basic carpentry" which would *predict* that he could make a simple bookcase - even though no-one had ever observed him making a simple bookcase before. Magic! Competencies form hierarchies, from concrete "leaf" capabilities through to very abstract "trunk" competencies, like saying someone is intelligent, "sporty" or "good with their hands". A further important point is that, being abstract, any measure of competency has a degree of uncertainty about it, illustrated by the degree of uncertainty in any predication which is based on the competency. I would call any supposed measure of competency a "competency claim", also adding that the confidence with which the claim is made will vary depending on the amount of evidence you have of its predictive reliability. How you define a particular competency (rather than the term) is the subject of another post. Anyone interested in this subject might like to look at the discussion I had a while back with some LETSI people at https://letsi.org/resources/Performance_Correspondence.html. The most interesting piece of the discussion, to my view, is with Allyn Radford, starting some way down the page. Crispin. > -----Original Message----- > From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] > On Behalf Of Ian Lynch > Sent: 10 March 2010 21:53 > To: Kent, Peter > Cc: Ray Tolley; Mal Lee; secondary@talk.naace.org; advisory@talk.naace.org > Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax > > > 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! > > Dictionary definition > The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified; ability. > See Synonyms at ability. A specific range of skill, knowledge, or > ability. > > > 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...’ > > I'd say competencies are fundamentally about outcome more than > process. A competent person achieves the desired outcome. The process > is subordinate to that but could well determine the efficiency at > which the outcome is achieved. > > > The need to learn technical skills then becomes purpose driven as I > suggest > > It seems to me that it would be an unusual rather than a typical case > that considered technical skills outside some meaningful context > although there could be some merit in practising a technical skill on > its own. There are many examples. eg, Jonny Wilkinson practising goal > kicking outside a rugby match, a child learning multiplication tables, > a musician practising scales. What matters is the right balance to get > the outcome for a particular learner and that might well vary from > person to person. The danger is the teacher assuming that because they > personally do or don't like a method that any particular learner is > going to think the same way. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From ianrlynch@googlemail.com Thu Mar 11 22:18:21 2010 From: ianrlynch@googlemail.com (Ian Lynch) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:18:21 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: <95BBFBADCDF2461C9F7C1DAA9F52E12B@DEVELOPMENT> References: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> <95BBFBADCDF2461C9F7C1DAA9F52E12B@DEVELOPMENT> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Crispin Weston wrote: > Ah-ha! The very interesting question of competencies. > > I think this is an important discussion because we have yet to create an > acceptable way of codifying competencies (a key pre-requisite for many new > learning technologies, including portfolios and systems for managing > differentiation and remediation automatically). I hope someone from QDCA is > listening in. > > I agree with Ian that competency is connected to outcome. > > But I would go further and define it along the following lines: > > A characteristic which was predictive of a person's ability to achieve a > range of desirable outcomes. > > If you say that someone is "good at tennis" you are predicting that he will > beat someone who you say is "bad at tennis". If you say the two people are > good and bad respectively at racket sports, then you would predict the > outcome of matches in tennis, squash and ping pong and even some new racket > game which hasn't been invented yet. This last point is important, because: > > a) competencies are transferrable (which is why employers recruit graduates, > even though they know nothing about the business in which they are being > employed); Some competencies are transferable in some contexts. A physics graduate is not necessarily going to be competent in human communication, table tennis or classroom teaching. > b) the nature of the competency cannot be defined exclusively by the range > of outcomes of which it is taken at any particular point in time to be > predictive. No measure ever can. An ICT graduate that does no practice for 10 years won't necessarily be a competent IT user. > In other words, competency is abstract. Uncertain I would say is a more significant property than being abstract and the degree of uncertainty is variable. But then again an academic exam result has similar properties, it too is uncertain - was that a particularly good or bad day? Did the right questions come up? How much of the knowledge needed is remembered a few months on etc. it's fairly easy to understand that there are degrees of competence with factors such as context making a significant difference. > The transferability of a competency is crucial. If you define a competency > very narrowly, as I understand a lot of vocational courses do, to say "saw a > piece of wood in half" Actually if you look at the QCF you will find this is not the case at all. ITQ Bespoke software unit at Level 2 A competent person will use appropriate structures to organise and retrieve information efficiently Assessment criteria B2.1 Describe what functions to apply to structure and layout information effectively B2.2 Select and use appropriate structures and layouts to organise information B2.3 Apply local and/or legal guidelines and conventions for the storage and use of data where available That seems pretty broad to me. In some respects rather better than the vagueness of NC attainment target statements. In fact combining both is probably better than either in isolation but that is not too surprising. > and you demonstrate the competency by performing the > action, then all you get to show is that we know that x can saw a piece of > wood in half because he has been observed sawing a piece of wood in half. Could be important if that person is building your shed :-). OTOH, it is inaccurate to give the impression that is typical of how good vocational qualifications are written. > (In fact, it might have been a fluke - he should really be observed > performing the action several times in several different contexts). But the > main point I am making is that these very concrete, yes/no competencies are > in fact tautological: they say nothing Just as passing an academic exam on a one off at the end of two years could be a fluke? Sawing in a straight line for any distance is unlikely to be achieved by a fluke. > In order to *infer* an abstract competency, you must observe a range of > concrete performances which achieve defined outcomes, preferably performed > repeatedly in a range of different contexts. These observed performances, > the leaves on the competency tree if you like, I would call "capabilities". > > You could then say that if someone demonstrated a range of capabilities, > from sawing to screwing to drilling to sanding etc. you could *infer* a > competency at "basic carpentry" which would *predict* that he could make a > simple bookcase - even though no-one had ever observed him making a simple > bookcase before. Magic! Which is how qualifications like the ITQ are designed. There is nothing about using a WP to write a particular document, there is stuff about the typical things one does in a WP that if demonstrated in a range of context would make it unlikely that the candidate could not design that unique form or brochure. But getting practice with real and meaningful tasks is better than doing imaginary and theoretical ones because for most people it is likely to be more motivating. > Competencies form hierarchies, from concrete "leaf" capabilities through to > very abstract "trunk" competencies, like saying someone is intelligent, > "sporty" or "good with their hands". > > A further important point is that, being abstract, any measure of competency > has a degree of uncertainty about it, illustrated by the degree of > uncertainty in any predication which is based on the competency. I would > call any supposed measure of competency a "competency claim", also adding > that the confidence with which the claim is made will vary depending on the > amount of evidence you have of its predictive reliability. > > How you define a particular competency (rather than the term) is the subject > of another post. > > Anyone interested in this subject might like to look at the discussion I had > a while back with some LETSI people at > https://letsi.org/resources/Performance_Correspondence.html. The most > interesting piece of the discussion, to my view, is with Allyn Radford, > starting some way down the page. > > Crispin. > From crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk Fri Mar 12 08:41:47 2010 From: crispin.weston@alphalearning.co.uk (Crispin Weston) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:41:47 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: References: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> <95BBFBADCDF2461C9F7C1DAA9F52E12B@DEVELOPMENT> Message-ID: Hi Ian, I think we basically agree. You are right to pick me up for defaming vocational qualifications, which I have little direct experience of - though there is evidence, I think, that the early NVQs were too strongly based on simple task-based performance. As for the reliability of an observed performance, someone might successfully saw a straight line using familiar tools, with a familiar type of wood, at the end of a three day course of practice. Put him in an unfamiliar situation a week later and the result is pretty wonky. Crispin. From gary.clawson@nwlg.org Fri Mar 12 11:54:53 2010 From: gary.clawson@nwlg.org (Gary Clawson) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:54:53 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] National Digital Resource Bank Update Message-ID: <62530A109E7741CC854A7AD06D25DD2E@your9a6adca76b> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01CAC1DA.D4297B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All With the NAACE Strategic conference in Blackpool next week it is timely = that I provide a brief update on the development that Jim Knight = described last year in his conference speech as "a landmark project" - = the National Digital Resource Bank (NDRB). NDRB is a project that only = came about after NAACE members called for the establishment of a = repository of publicly funded digital resources. Since Jim Knight's = backing we now have the largest repository of creative commons content = in the UK and will soon be entering into several international = federations. The basis of the project has always been to gather all = those publicly funded digital resources and get them into a form whereby = any teacher can use them in any technical platform, in perpetuity, = without any worries about Intellectual Property Rights. A massive change = to the costly patchwork set-up created by elearning credits and a = disparate commercial market. NDRB is funded through contributions and lots of time and effort from 2 = Regional bodies (NWLG and YHGfL) as well as many innovative Local = Authorities from Wales to Worcestershire, from Northumberland to = Nottingham, from Blackpool to Bradford - a truly national collaboration. = The average cost per school to cover the cost of hosting, open source = development and resource tagging is around =A325 when supported by a RBC = or Local Authority. =A325 for thousands of excellent curriculum specific = digital resources that can be imported into your learning platforms. With the need to save money but still maintain ICT services, NDRB will = reduce expenditure on digital resources significantly, it will empower = teachers to create derived works from the use of a comprehensive bank of = curriculum focused 'open' content and it will enable learning platforms = to deliver much better value for money. In some cases it may be the only = thing that convinces schools to keep using them. All this proving that =A325 will get you a lot more than a bottle of = wine at the NAACE conference! The first few thousand resources are now in and if you go to = www.ndrb.org.uk then some quick searches will give you an idea of what = the bank has now. We expect to quadruple the amount of resources over = the next 12 months. If you go to the main www.nwlg.org.uk site there is = lots of information about NDRB and if you need to know a bit more then = don't hesitate to drop me an email. Kind Regards =20 Gary Clawson Chief Executive North West Learning Grid eGovernment National Awards 2006 Winner eGovernment National Awards 2009 Highly Commended BETT Awards 2010 Finalist =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com=20 Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2736 - Release Date: 03/11/10 = 07:33:00 ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01CAC1DA.D4297B00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear=20 All
 
With = the NAACE=20 Strategic conference in Blackpool next week it is timely that I provide = a brief=20 update on the development that Jim Knight described last year in = his=20 conference speech as "a landmark project" - the National Digital = Resource Bank=20 (NDRB). NDRB is a project that only came about after NAACE members = called=20 for the establishment of a repository of publicly funded = digital=20 resources. Since Jim Knight's backing we now have the largest = repository of=20 creative commons content in the UK and will soon be entering into = several=20 international federations. The basis of the project has always been to = gather=20 all those publicly funded digital resources and get them into a form = whereby any=20 teacher can use them in any technical platform, in perpetuity, without = any=20 worries about Intellectual Property Rights. A massive change to the = costly=20 patchwork set-up created by elearning credits and a disparate commercial = market.
 
NDRB = is funded=20 through contributions and lots of time and effort from 2 Regional = bodies=20 (NWLG and YHGfL) as well as many innovative Local Authorities from = Wales to=20 Worcestershire, from Northumberland to Nottingham, from Blackpool to = Bradford -=20 a truly national collaboration. The average cost per school to = cover the=20 cost of hosting, open source development and resource tagging = is=20 around =A325 when supported by a RBC or Local Authority. =A325 for = thousands of=20 excellent curriculum specific digital resources that can be imported = into your=20 learning platforms.
 
With = the=20 need to save money but still maintain ICT services, NDRB will = reduce=20 expenditure on digital resources significantly, it will empower = teachers to=20 create derived works from the use of a comprehensive bank of curriculum = focused=20 'open' content and it will enable learning platforms to deliver much = better=20 value for money. In some cases it may be the only thing that convinces = schools=20 to keep using them.
 
All = this proving=20 that =A325 will get you a lot more than a bottle of wine at the NAACE=20 conference!
 
The = first=20 few thousand resources are now in and if you go to www.ndrb.org.uk then some quick = searches will=20 give you an idea of what the bank has now. We expect to quadruple the = amount of=20 resources over the next 12 months. If you go to the main www.nwlg.org.uk site there is lots = of=20 information about NDRB and if you need to know a bit more then don't = hesitate to=20 drop me an email.
 

Kind Regards

 

Gary Clawson

Chief Executive

North West Learning Grid

 

eGovernment National Awards = 2006=20 Winner

eGovernment National Awards 2009 Highly = Commended

BETT=20 Awards 2010 Finalist

 

 

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -=20 www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2736 - = Release Date:=20 03/11/10 07:33:00
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01CAC1DA.D4297B00-- From ianrlynch@googlemail.com Fri Mar 12 14:29:04 2010 From: ianrlynch@googlemail.com (Ian Lynch) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax In-Reply-To: References: <00b601caa90d$db794fb0$926bef10$@co.uk> <95BBFBADCDF2461C9F7C1DAA9F52E12B@DEVELOPMENT> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Crispin Weston wrote: > Hi Ian, > > I think we basically agree. > > You are right to pick me up for defaming vocational qualifications, which I > have little direct experience of - though there is evidence, I think, that > the early NVQs were too strongly based on simple task-based performance. Probably one reason why they are now replaced by the QCF. There is still bad practice but that is also true of academic qualifications. > As for the reliability of an observed performance, someone might > successfully saw a straight line using familiar tools, with a familiar type > of wood, at the end of a three day course of practice. Put him in an > unfamiliar situation a week later and the result is pretty wonky. Which is a good argument as to why we should not, in school, teach people exclusively with particular tools eg Word or Powerpoint. Let's say there is a critical safety procedure you have to get right first time evey time. Having a specific assessment for that procedure is perfectly reasonable. In the end, it all depends on the purpose of developing the competence. Having said all that, someone with a lot of experience in Word would pick up Writer more easily than someone who had never touched a WP. and someone who could saw wood with one saw in one context probably would be more likely to become proficient in another more quickly than someone with no experience of sawing at all. From rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk Sun Mar 14 15:45:47 2010 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk (Ray Tolley) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:45:47 -0000 Subject: [Advisory] Calls for Sweeping Change in Education Law Message-ID: <000001cac38d$6a967210$3fc35630$@co.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CAC38D.6A967210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In case you've not seen it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?th &emc=th BW 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 T: http://twitter.com/efolio Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CAC38D.6A967210 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In case you’ve not seen it:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?th&= emc=3Dth

 

BW

 

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

T:    = http://twitter.com/efolio

Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award = 2009'

 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CAC38D.6A967210-- From debara71@hotmail.com Sun Mar 14 18:54:52 2010 From: debara71@hotmail.com (david bara) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:54:52 +0000 Subject: FW: [Advisory] Calls for Sweeping Change in Education Law In-Reply-To: <000001cac38d$6a967210$3fc35630$@co.uk> References: <000001cac38d$6a967210$3fc35630$@co.uk> Message-ID: --_020c7328-c599-46e0-a196-312c26cdf0c7_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk To: advisory@talk.naace.org=3B secondary@talk.naace.org Subject: [Advisory] Calls for Sweeping Change in Education Law Date: Sun=2C 14 Mar 2010 15:45:47 +0000 In case you=92ve not seen it: =20 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?th&emc=3Dth =20 BW =20 Ray Tolley FEIDCT=2C NAACE Fellow=2C ACQI=2C 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 T: http://twitter.com/efolio Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009' =20 _________________________________________________________________ We want to hear all your funny=2C exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell = us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/= --_020c7328-c599-46e0-a196-312c26cdf0c7_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 =3B
From: rjt@maximise-ict.co.uk
To: advisory@talk.naace.org=3B secondary@ta= lk.naace.org
Subject: [Advisory] Calls for Sweeping Change in Education = Law
Date: Sun=2C 14 Mar 2010 15:45:47 +0000

In case you=92ve not seen it:

 =3B

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/educa= tion/14child.html?th&=3Bemc=3Dth

 =3B

BW

 =3B

Ray Tolley =3B FEIDCT=2C NAACE Fellow=2C ACQI=2C MBILD

ICT Education Consultant

Maximise ICT Ltd

P: =3B http://raytolley.v2efoliowor= ld.mnscu.edu/

B: =3B http://www.efoliointheuk.blogsp= ot.com/

W: =3B http://www.maximise-ict.= co.uk/eFolio-01.htm

T: =3B =3B&n= bsp=3B http://twitter.com/efolio

Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Region= al Award 2009'

 =3B


Not got a= Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free = --_020c7328-c599-46e0-a196-312c26cdf0c7_--