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

[Crispin Weston]

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