[Year 12 SofDev] From your friendly Adminstrator

Thu Mar 10 22:21:41 EST 2011

Dear Friends,

>From time to time in the heat of striving for excellence we either use or
interpret language in slightly different ways.

For example:

     Each and EVERY member of the study design panel should be able to
clearly and unequivocally, definitively  answer your question because they
put it in the study design. It did not get there by accident. All members of
the panel are responsible for the document...

Intended message: All members of the panel are highly professional,
discharge their responsibilities with the utmost care and would be aware of
the meaning of the final document in all its parts. They have our highest
regard and respect and would be best placed to help clarify what we are
trying to understand here. There can't be ambiguity here as this and all
other items would have been thoroughly discussed and an agreement reached.
We just need to find what that is. Perhaps they can help us as we need them
now ?

Interpreted message:  All members of the panel are responsible for what they
do and ultimately put down as the final document. Actually, they are more
than responsible. Since they took on this job we can hold them to account
and even hold them liable for everything written here. So, let's ask them to
justify what they have written here.

In my 15 years trying to make this community work I have found the above
example overwhelmingly the single reason for misunderstanding,
disappointment and ultimately grievance. 

[ For the record, I have never been on a study panel, but have been informed
that sometimes different people may work and focus on different areas and
therefore would not be able to answer very detailed questions about all
areas of the document with equal authority. I can't validate this and it is
perhaps a minor point, but I thought it should be made ]

We are all human. Our Hippocratic Oath is " unconditional positive regard"
and we all do our best to give our students every opportunity to succeed.

We are extremely fortunate to have Paula ever present in our different
online communities. We simply would be lost without her participation. She
is not compelled to  be online with us and we repeatedly thank her for being
here. 

Andrew has been and always is highly professional and enjoys enormous
respect for his expertise and participation. His contributions always lift
us that little bit more. He has proven his professionalism with his
clarification to remove any misunderstanding.

Can I implore all of you wonderful , dedicated, professional and caring
people to keep up the great work and continue to look after each other. 

With my best wishes

Kevork Krozian

Edulists Creator Administrator

www.edulists.com.au

tel: 0419 356 034

From: sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au]
On Behalf Of Andrew Shortell
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2011 8:44 PM
To: Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List
Subject: [Year 12 SofDev] A comment about Re: SD key knowledge

Dear all

My intention was not to impugn the ability and knowledge nor to "target" the
panel. I regret that my communication was not as clear as I thought I had
made it.

My intention was to note that the study design panel members will have a
clear understanding of everything in the study. Thus we should get the word
from them.

I have been very much aware of the comments made about the exam in this
subject at times and believe that the exam setting panel has been unfairly
treated on their interpretation of the study design.

Teaching year 12 students is a very serious matter when , as a teacher, I
want my students to do as well as is possible - certainly to achieve their
"personal Bests".

As a consequence I abhor this concept of guessing what is meant and perhaps
guessing wrong. I feel that guessing is not doing justice to the trust
placed in me by the students and their parents to deliver the best
opportunity for them to be successful. Students are under enough pressure
already without the teachers upon whom they rely making guesses about
content.

When I was Panel chairperson back in the early 90's I was amazed at the
efforts made by teachers. When I marked CATs at VCAA through the 90's I saw
a lot of variation. When I write exams ( as I have for Monash and RMIT and
others) I always ensure that I am understand what is meant by the base
material. I mark the exams I set so I can see where I might have failed to
give the students their real opportunity.
When I was on the study design panel that produced the 99/2000 study I asked
many questions, clarifying the things about which I was unsure of the
meaning in the study. When it was implemented I was able to say that I
understood what was meant by it.

I came to teaching after some years in other careers. It was a choice, not
an accident. I have stayed as a teacher by choice. I believe that we should
not guess at content. We should not guess at process. We should learn,
communicate, understand, evaluate and eventually reach wisdom. Without self
reflection, self evaluation and honesty how can we move forward in our lives
and help those whom we seek to lead into knowledge?

The above should, I hope, communicate to you that my intention is not to
target anyone but to say that if we do not know then ask those on whose work
we rely. If any other concept was communicated to you by my previous email
then I regret that my communication was not as clear as I thought I had made
it.

Any further comments on this matter should really be made off list,
personally, to me, by phone email or fax (as some have already done). There
are those on this list aware that most of my communication is off list and
it will remain so.

Andrew
(still passionate about creating authentic learning experiences that enable
students to achieve knowledge and understanding, to learn how to learn, to
become lifelong learners, to love learning and the opportunities and
excitement that can open up, to advance themselves and to enable students to
develop passion about what they do. -- vision of old man climbing down off
small soapbox and staggering off to say goodnight to his child. )

-- 
Andrew Shortell

mailto:shortell at get2me.net 
Heidelberg Teaching Unit
Ph 9470 3403
Fax  9470 3215

c/o Reservoir High School
855 Plenty Rd
Reservoir 3073

On 10/03/11 4:55 PM, "Christophersen, Paula P"
<christophersen.paula.p at edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote:

Dear Andrew

I would like to express my disappointment at the tone and nature of your
comments regarding the expertise and the responsibilities of the study
design review panel. 

Everyone has a right to express their views in a fair and reasonable way,
and to me in this instance you have the right to let the VCAA know of your
concerns, but I believe that it is unfair and unprofessional to target the
individuals comprising the review panel. 

I will respond to your study design query tomorrow.

Regards
Paula

Paula Christophersen
ICT Curriculum Manager
VCAA
41 St Andrews Place
EAST MELBOURNE 3002
(03) 9651 4378

  _____  

From: sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au]
On Behalf Of Andrew Shortell
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2011 8:18 PM
To: Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Year 12 SofDev] SD key knowledge

Hi Mark

[nice ppt btw]

Each and EVERY member of the study design panel should be able to clearly
and unequivocally, definitively  answer your question because they put it in
the study design. It did not get there by accident. All members of the panel
are responsible for the document...
Members of the panel discuss (and read) the document and have the
opportunity to clarify anything that they do not understand.
Just occasionally something gets missed ... That is why we have errata and
corrections published (and I know all about those!)

If it is not an errata the there must be a definitive answer so let's just
ask the panel to provide it rather than us guessing, perhaps not getting it
in the way that the panel intended  and absolutely missing what the exam
setting panel might think. We do NOT want the exam setting panel to receive
a torrent of unwarranted adverse comments. 

As mature sensible professionals we should all be working towards a common
set of understandings that are generously shared (as per this list).

[btw - at least a dead dog does not fight you when you stick the cotton bud
in to its ears! Try doing an alive Alaskan malamute! ]

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/sofdev/attachments/20110310/28e9082a/attachment-0001.html 