Allison, this has been identified as an issue and a subject of considerable discussion by the ITS syllabus committee - we are working to provide greater guidance in the new syllabus. It will be available in draft for comment soon. Any suggestions I can pass back from QSITE members would be most welcome before our final meeting in 2 weeks, regards Jason
Dr Jason Zagami BSc GradDipEd MEd PhD FACE ACCE Associate Lecturer School of Education and Professional Studies Griffith University QLD Australia Phone: 61 7 5552 8454 Fax: 61 7 5552 8599 [email protected] www.zagami.info Queensland Society for Information Technology in Education President (QSITE) Australian College of Educators Regional President (Gold Coast) (ACE) Australian Council for Computers in Education board (ACCE) HP Innovations in Education Australia Mentor (IIE) Apple Distinguished Educator (ADE) Google Certified Teacher (GCT) "What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation?" - Cicero "Teaching - the act of constantly changing student minds" On 25 May 2011 11:03, FINCH Allison <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Col & other interested ITS teachers, > > > > I think most people are pretty clear about the use of the profile and > panel’s role in looking for evidence to support a LoA. My question has been > posed for a different reason. I have been involved with the 2010 IPT > syllabus and 2010 Accounting syllabus. It appears that these documents more > clearly define word lengths than in previous documents, eg. it is specified > that a Product assessment in IPT has a written explanation 1000-1500 words. > > > > My experience with ITS, and panel feedback on our submissions to date, > indicates that evidence in a major project to support a VHA LoA requires > students to carry out extended writing for complex analysis of tasks and > justification of design choices (and that visual representations are > enhancements not replacements for this writing). If a student does a 2-page > analysis in 12pt font, this is approximately 1000 words. To provide in-depth > description and justification can sometimes be significantly more. Further > written evidence is then required for a complete CIPP evaluation and samples > that I have requested after initially receiving negative feedback on our > students’ evaluations are well over 1000 words. Some students, at my school > and at other schools in my district, are sometimes writing well in excess of > 3000 words for a major project. > > > > The size of the task is very daunting for some students, and we are > possibly not really see what they can do and know because they are just so > overwhelmed by the task that they give up. The summative assessment load as > per minimum requirements for verification folio is quite heavy in > comparison to some of their other subjects – the major project which has > significant extended writing, an extended writing task greater than 1000 > words, an exam and at least one other task. I see that if the major project > was divided into 2 separate instruments, engagement with and the quality of > student work could improve, and the assessment load could be cut. > > > > Also, it appears that some schools are splitting their major project into 2 > and there does not appear to be any penalty from panels for their students > so long as the panel finds evidence to support the requested LoA. The raises > an equity issue in the work load and treatment of students across the state. > > > > I am raising these issues to provoke some debate on the scale of a major > project in ITS, and just to hear the thoughts of others teaching ITS. I > would be quite relieved if I am told that I am misinterpreting the > requirements for a major project, and would really appreciate if anyone is > willing to share an A standard Year 12 major project. Also, I am interested > in knowing whether the new ITS syllabus will have word limits on projects > similar to IPT. > > > > Regards, > > Allison > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Col Thompson > *Sent:* Tuesday, 24 May 2011 11:39 AM > *To:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Subject:* RE: [qsiteict] Paper Prototyping > > > > Hi Allison, > > > > You bring up a valid point. Each item must stand alone and should not be > split for a purpose of a type of “weighting” exercise on profile. > > > > A major project should (within itself) provide opportunity to demonstrate > all three PS dimensions as well as the FA and C criteria dimensions. So, > they should be able to demonstrate all aspects of the DDE cycle. > > > > It used to be popular for some people (and indeed we had talked these at > State Panel level) of providing opportunity to show some indication of > weighting of a major project to the overall outcome or standard of the > student. However, upon clarification, what we should be doing is looking at > the overall standard of the students work and looking for evidence to > support a LoA not how many A’s or B’s show up on a profile. The profile is > a summary of a student’s journey not a method for “averaging” results to > calculate the overall result. Panels *will not *be using the profile for > this purpose so splitting a task for this purpose is no longer relevant. > > > > Regards, > *Col Thompson* > > *State Chair* > > *A26 ITS* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *FINCH Allison > *Sent:* Tuesday, 24 May 2011 11:26 AM > *To:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Subject:* RE: [qsiteict] Paper Prototyping > > > > Thank you for sharing this Rebecca. I have a general question about how > this major project is split into 2 separate assessment instruments. Is this > acceptable from a panel point of view? I have been led to believe that a > major project cannot be split into 2 separate pieces of assessment like > this. > > > > Would appreciate the viewpoint of others on this, particularly people > associated with the different panels around the state. > > > > Thanks, > Allison > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *HUGGETT Rebecca > *Sent:* Monday, 23 May 2011 9:16 AM > *To:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Subject:* RE: [qsiteict] Paper Prototyping > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > In 12 ITS we do a game design written task then a game design minor project > (see attached). This way they have to do the game design to a decent > standard first, and once that has been completed and marked they create the > game. > > > > > > Thanks, > Rebecca > " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Rebecca Huggett > Maths / IT Teacher > E-Learning Coordinator > Moranbah SHS > (: 07 4949 2111 > (: Extension 123 > 8: [email protected] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kym Coleman > *Sent:* Saturday, 21 May 2011 11:04 PM > *To:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Cc:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Subject:* Re: [qsiteict] Paper Prototyping > > Year 9 IT but could be used at any level. Just change the complexity of the > game. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 21, 2011, at 7:45 PM, "FINCH Allison" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kym, > > Do you use this proforma for ICT SAS or ITS? > > Allison > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kym Coleman > *Sent:* Saturday, 21 May 2011 12:32 PM > *To:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Subject:* RE: [qsiteict] Paper Prototyping > > Our girls have to write a game plan before they start creating their game … > in theory, that is. See attaché. > > Kym > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *paul > *Sent:* Friday, 20 May 2011 7:05 PM > *To:* QSITE ICT Teachers > *Subject:* [qsiteict] Paper Prototyping > > Hi > > I've been concerned for a while about the cursory treatment of the design > phase in programming that can often with students, especially in an > environment like GameMaker. > > Has anyone successfully explored paper prototyping as a means of getting > them take this part of the process more seriously? > > Paul > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705927.a5bbcae1d49d3c471a73d836ccb43d47&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1889828 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1889828-705927.a5bbcae1d49d3c471a73d836ccb43...@edna.edu.au > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705903.04ec51337dd8d0ab0fe389339f0a1c72&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1889990 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1889990-705903.04ec51337dd8d0ab0fe389339f0a1...@edna.edu.au > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705927.a5bbcae1d49d3c471a73d836ccb43d47&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1890056 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1890056-705927.a5bbcae1d49d3c471a73d836ccb43...@edna.edu.au > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705951.b100aaeb9ae93fd5702c18cb0ff3af75&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1890084 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1890084-705951.b100aaeb9ae93fd5702c18cb0ff3a...@edna.edu.au > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705903.04ec51337dd8d0ab0fe389339f0a1c72&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1890946 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1890946-705903.04ec51337dd8d0ab0fe389339f0a1...@edna.edu.au > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705591.c5601b37e890d4119c8bd0c6a1e35c81&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1891832 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1891832-705591.c5601b37e890d4119c8bd0c6a1e35...@edna.edu.au > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705903.04ec51337dd8d0ab0fe389339f0a1c72&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1891852 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1891852-705903.04ec51337dd8d0ab0fe389339f0a1...@edna.edu.au > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=804300.79f4f4945143cd28fef9e15c3a4647d6&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1892515 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1892515-804300.79f4f4945143cd28fef9e15c3a464...@edna.edu.au > > --- You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705742.d42ea647e85be3beb25392eea1a77f09&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1892582 or send a blank email to leave-1892582-705742.d42ea647e85be3beb25392eea1a77...@edna.edu.au
