Allison, You bring up a concern we have all had for many years. The current syllabus requirements as outlined on p35 do say that the project is documented through all its phases and that it has an extended written component. And it should involve the components of DDE (see “planning an integrated project” on p55) and certainly the intent of the MaP is that it is just that, a project that allows students (individually or in teams) to demonstrate the whole process. This means that an A student may undertake documentation at a greater level than what would be expected at an extended writing task.
If MaP have been accepted by panels in the past that split the task into two then there may be extenuating circumstances for this to have occurred that the school has outlined to the Panel(s). It would not normally be the practice and I will be reminding DRPCs of the nature of the assessment tasks at SRP conference in July. Of course as mentioned, any extenuating circumstances are considered by panels on a case by case basis as panels are looking for evidence of standards in student/folio responses not so much the size of the response. In my experience, I have had A standard responses to the MaP of varying lengths and I would be carefully looking at the standard statements for communication when I am considering the standard I apply to a response of this type. Quite often a MaP task is completed in teams – we certainly do here. In this way, we have students sharing the “load” of documentation until the evaluation phase which is done individually. Certainly, any feedback that can be taken back to the syllabus committee for the next iteration of the syllabus would be gratefully received. As Jason says, please send through him. 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=705591.c5601b37e890d4119c8bd0c6a1e35c81&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1892582 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-1892582-705591.c5601b37e890d4119c8bd0c6a1e35...@edna.edu.au --- You are currently subscribed to qsiteict as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://lyris.edna.edu.au/u?id=705742.d42ea647e85be3beb25392eea1a77f09&n=T&l=qsiteict&o=1892676 or send a blank email to leave-1892676-705742.d42ea647e85be3beb25392eea1a77...@edna.edu.au
