[Year 12 Its] RE: IPM 2006 Study Design

Thu Apr 7 08:45:50 EST 2005

Hi Stephen

Great to hear from you. I must admit I have been surprised at the low
level of response - maybe for some, the matter is too big!! I will pass
on your comments to the committee, and of course, personally take them
into consideration.

Regards

Paula Christophersen

(03) 9651 4378

-----Original Message-----
From: is-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:is-bounces at edulists.com.au] On
Behalf Of Stephen Digby DEET
Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2005 3:30 PM
To: 'IS List'
Subject: [Year 12 Its] RE: IPM 2006 Study Design

Thanks Paula for the invitation to contribute.  It is great when these
offers come so frequently and openly (if only DE&T worked that way !!!)

I think that the key problems arise from 

* students

   -  overwhelmingly want practical skills and knowledge that they can
use in their current or future work (whether it is specifically
vocational or just useful in the repertoire).

   -  (reluctantly) accept that they have to learn "theory" because

       - - it puts the practical skills & knowledge in context and

       - - thus makes it more understandable and transferable

* VCAA

    - needs theory so that it can continue to argue for intellectual
equity and rigor among studies

    - has reduced space for practical skills and knowledge to make room
for theory

    - has removed specific practical skills and knowledge because it has
given these to VET and TAFE and does not want duplication

* teachers

  - want to deliver all theory within a practical context so they want
space to develop skill that allow complex theory to be experienced.
This takes time and so the amount of theory covered is in inverse
proportion to the amount of practical work (some ivory tower dwellers
will always argue that any good teacher can deliver everything
simultaneously !)

  - want to be able to offer specific courses that meet student needs or
be able to change a generic course to meet those needs.

  - want to deliver the nest study score they can

* unis

 - don't want students to think they have already "done" something which
needs to be studied in depth at university

 - IT is such a chaotic and changeable creature that the more specific
the skills, the less predictable is their utility.

 - Thus, unis want students with the highest "general purpose" skills
development - (1) reading (2) comprehension (3) composition (4) clear &
logical thinking (5) persistence and self-discipline.  They are far less
interested in specific prepatory skills unless they are "tailored".

Thus, I support:

Year 11:

General course structure focused on applications of "application
software" e.g. 2 a semester and 3 over the year (including options for
application environments that support programming).  Application types
specified with associated skill/ knowledge lists to ensure standards are
comparable.  Assessment task library collected from practicing teachers,
vetted for standards and made available on line as recommended standards
guide and curriculum support.  Students who wish to focus on system
design would likely choose a programming support application for the
whole year.

Year 12 Systems: changed to de-emphasis general theory unrelated to the
capacity of the course to offer related skills and experience.  Focus on
software development (programming) with specific assessment questions
related to each allowed language, as well as generic questions re.
programming.  Secondary focus on hardware with options available e.g.
WiFi systems, network systems, personal computer systems.  Each with
specific assessable content description (differences and overlap).  Idea
being to encourage depth c whatever the school can provide practically
to play with.  Main improvement - more programming time and focus; less
general theory of which students are unlikely to have any possibility of
direct experience; more specific hardware focus so that schools are
encouraged to provide hands on; more of the course specifically
assessable at end of year exam via optional sections.

Year 12 IPM:  Changed to de-emphasis general theory unrelated to the
capacity of the course to offer related skills and experience.  Focus on
software applications at high standard. Approved software types and
"brands" c associated specific examinable skills & knowledge (not
possible if only vague software "types" are specified).  2 applications
all year.  Students encouraged to complete portfolio tasks of increasing
complexity as in a job  e.g. MS Access - flat file DB, related DB c
standard reports, customised data structure and outputs, customised
features requiring macros, linked tables; improve existing design
(disassemble, reassemble); complete DB based on output document samples
etc.  Main improvement - more application use time and focus; less
general theory of which students are unlikely to have any possibility of
direct experience; more specific software focus so that schools are
encouraged to provide hands on; more of the course specifically
assessable at end of year exam via optional sections.

Just some holiday thoughts......

==================================
Stephen Digby, Learning Technology Manager
digby.stephen.p at edumail.vic.gov.au
Cheltenham Secondary College
www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au <http://www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au/> 
Ph: 613 955 55 955  Fx: 9555 8617
==================================

________________________________

From: Maiser at novell2.fhc.vic.edu.au
[mailto:Maiser at novell2.fhc.vic.edu.au] On Behalf Of Christophersen,
Paula P
Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2005 11:44 AM
To: IS List
Subject: RE: IPM 2006 Study Design

The VCE IT study design is accredited until the end of 2006, so it's
business as usual until the commencement of 2007. A reaccredited study
design will be available in schools in early 2006. This is in line with
the VCAA's policy of providing schools with a year's notice of its
reaccredited study designs.

I'm not certain if I should be asking this question, but here goes!! If
anyone has some opinions on the suitability of the current 6-unit
structure of VCE IT, please share them.  Many of you expressed your
opinions in the online survey last year, and these have been taken into
account. The committee reviewing the study is considering the viability
of some other study structures. Some possibilities include:

*    two studies of 4 units each

*    one study only of 4 units

*    a couple of 'stand-alone' units at units 1 and 2 that have a clear
focus/context rather than just Info Tech 1 and Info Tech 2; and then the
IPM and IS-type structure at units 3 and 4

*    the current offering (6 unit structure)

*    the current offering, but with an option within units 3 and 4

*    .....?   

I'm happy for people to send their comments directly to me, if that is
their choice. Alternatively, an open discussion may result in other
options being proposed. Looking forward to reading your comments!

Regards

Paula Christophersen

ICT Curriculum Manager

VCAA

41 St Andrews Place

EAST MELBOURNE 3002

(03) 9651 4378

-----Original Message-----
From: Maiser at novell2.fhc.vic.edu.au
[mailto:Maiser at novell2.fhc.vic.edu.au] On Behalf Of Philip Brown
Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2005 9:33 AM
To: IPM List
Subject: IPM 2006 Study Design

Has anybody any idea where next years study design for IPM is at? Is
there a web site or discussion forum which is discussing the
developments or proposed changes? 

P. Brown
Oxley College
9727 9917

Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If
received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before
opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects.
Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the
negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from
the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying
any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are
those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the
Department of Education & Training. 

Important - 
This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education & Training.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/is/attachments/20050407/13ef0205/attachment-0001.html