[Year 12 Its] RE: IPM 2006 Study Design

[gordonp at horsham-college.vic.edu.au]

some more great thoughts  Stephen - thanks. I'd just like to add:* common Year 11 course is way more preferable due to class numbers and flexibility for students in Year 12 choices. Staffing is much more flexible too with a common course. Is it seriously being proposed that students have to do a 4 unit sequence in IT??If the Year 11 course focuses more on hands on eg programming, animation, imaging, web etc in the context of solving IT problems for an organisation, enrolments will increase and the course will be much more enjoyable to teach! * i've just spent lots of days in the bush so these thoughts may be regretted later in the week ...but the SAC's are a bit of a farce really.The state average is 'A' and any great/poor results can be overidden by the exam result... The exam seems to be the best indicator of a final result.Why not have a mid-year AND a end of year exam? Pressure is reduced for students, and validity of assessment increases? It would follow that the number 
 and/or value of SACS be reduced.* in terms of content I think Stephen speaks for many IS teachers: more programming less artificial theorycheers                 gordon"Stephen Digby DEET" <digby.stephen.p at edumail.vic.gov.au> on Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:26:49 +1000 wrote:> *	> > 	duel 4 unit structure would be a problem in the context of dropping enrolments (i.e. many schools will only be able to run> one and thus "kill" the year 12 follow-on.  Some subjects only get to run every 2 years because of this inability to keep a constant> class size group.> Joint Year 11 highly preferable.> Achieve different emphases through allowing programming to be one of the "application environments" for the whole of year 11 either> for a whole class course or for those interested (a few  in a number of classes may then make up a class in year 12).> *	> > 	Don't like extended school assessed coursework.  Sounds like a CAT.  Credibility of study lies in all content being in exam.> Otherwise exam gets
  too general or easy or obscure or disconnected from actual activity in the course.  Exam is THE key student> performance separator so it MUST cover the key activity of the course or teacher will drift the core activity of the course TOWARD> what is on the exam (this has happened over the years with current course).> Thus need specific options which can be specifically examined at end of year by specific sections of the exam (sorry about the hard> work that this entails for VCAA !!)> *	> > 	Don't like breadth of IPM coverage.  Needs to be reduced to deep and skilful use of limited number of applications and the> organisational ideas that their use illuminates DIRECTLY (i.e. don't study complete organisational theory just because a spreadsheet> is CAPABLE of being used in all organisational levels and contexts)> > Ah...... Holidays......>  > > ==================================> Stephen Digby, Learning Technology Manager> digby.stephen.p at edumail.vic.gov.au> Cheltenham Seconda
 ry College> www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au <http://www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au/> > Ph: 613 955 55 955  Fx: 9555 8617> ==================================>  > >   _____  > > From: is-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:is-bounces at edulists.com.au] On Behalf Of Christophersen, Paula P> Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2005 8:53 AM> To: Year 12 Information Technology Systems Teachers' Mailing List> Subject: RE: [Year 12 Its] RE: IPM 2006 Study Design> > > > I'm back again!! Stephen, I gather from your comments that you are still in favour of the 6 unit approach, but with changes in each> unit. The review committee has identified a range of strengths and weaknesses of each of the options listed in my earlier email and> there has been a leaning away from the 6 unit approach to either two, 4-unit studies (one an applications focus; the other a> systems/programming focus) or two, unit 1 units with a specific focus and two, unit 2 units with as specific focus, and then a> revamped IPM and IS. We are also con
 sidering having an 'extended school assessed coursework' outcome for the 'big practical-based'> outcome in each unit. It is hoped that this will address some of your concerns regarding the relationship between theory and> practice, and rigour.> >  > > Any thoughts?> >  > > 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).> >    -  (reluctan
 tly) 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 abl
 e 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 t
 heory 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 ea
 rly 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 co
 mments 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 c
 onsequence, 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.> > Important - This email and any attachments ma
 y 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.> _______________________________________________> is mailing list> is at edulists.com.au> http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/is---Gordon Poultney