Thoughts on the framework levels

Photo Credit: Photo shared under a creative commons licence by Jacob Bøtter.

 

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what the framework will look like:

  • what the ‘levels’ will be
  • what the themes/strands will be

A lot of this thinking has been sparked by the reading, watching and listening that I’ve been doing about existing frameworks. I’m familiar with the work of Allan Martin (DigEuLit, Digital Literacies for Learning) from my postgraduate study and I recalled having read about Martin’s three levels of teacher professional development: aspirant, practitioner and consultant (Martin also includes an Entry-level).

I was also recently directed to the work of Beetham and Sharpe (thanks to Doug Belshaw’s recent presentation at Lecture Series SMIT). Here a developmental pyramid is used to illustrate the development of effective e-learners. Whilst my project is focusing more towards staff, I believe that when it comes to emerging technologies, we are all learners. Here they use four levels: access, skills, practices and attributes. Each level builds upon the next, in order to develop technical skills one must have adequate access to technology, and so on. At some point these levels became represented by the beginning of statements:

  • Access                ‘I have…’
  • Skills                  ‘I can…’
  • Practices            ‘I do…’
  • Attributes          ‘I am…’

I wonder if these could be used as the beginning of each of the statements within my framework?

N.B. I have yet to discover the origins of the statements, I have seen them on a number of presentation slides (including some by Beetham and Sharpe) but I’ve struggled to find the original reference.

 

Having looked at these two frameworks, I started to investigate how easily they fit together – and personally I think that they complement one another quite well.

At Entry-level, a member of staff has adequate access technology, this may range from their classroom presentation tools to the latest tablet device, but they are not confident in its use and do not have the skills to take advantage of the affordances that the technology provides them with.

At the level of the aspirant, the educator has begun to acquire new skills related to the use of techology and has an active interest in the development of their ability to utilise technology for learning and teaching. But they are aware that they still have much to learn, having technical skills isn’t enough – knowledge of how to apply these skills to the classroom context is needed.

The practitioner has integrated ICT use into their teaching practice, they are confident in their basic skills and know how to apply them in the classroom to create beneficial learning experiences. They are also capable of thinking critically about the technology that they use and its appropriateness for the situation.

At the level of the consultant, the teacher shares their experience and knowledge with others. They reflect on their practice and actively engage with professional development opportunities in order to maintain at the edge of educational technology.  They are active participants in communities of practice related to pedagogy and ICT.

As well as my above thoughts, I’ve had one question floating endlessly around my head this week – how to decide on the strands for the framework without being technology led. We have highlighted a number of areas that we wish to include within the framework:

  • CPD
  • Green ICT
  • E-Safety
  • Home-School Relationships
  • Mobile Technologies
  • Multimedia
  • Online Learning
  • Presentation Tools

Some of these are currently very clearly technology centred.

During a chat recently, someone advised me to break these down into what they allow staff to do – how these technologies link to pedagogy and what their affordances are. This is something that is still very much preying on my mind – any thoughts would be VERY welcome!

References

The ICT Pioneer Teacher (Allan Martin)

Frameworks for developing digitally literate learners (Beetham, Sharpe and McGill)

Advertisements

One thought on “Thoughts on the framework levels

  1. […] I mentioned in an earlier post, we initially highlighted 8 areas that we wanted to include within the strands of the framework. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s