[Advisory] Re: [Secondary] RE: The ICT Continuum Hoax

[Ian Lynch]

> 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.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------