I have been working on framing draft semantics for a
LEVEL qualifier for the AUDIENCE element. Given the
many good comments on the list, I have been visiting
various sites in the UK and Australia etc. In particular,
I have been looking in the UK at the National Vocational
Qualifications (NVQ & the SVQ) and the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority (QCA) qualifications framework
and I want to make sure I am somewhat on track before
going further. In looking at these various sites, it has become
clear to me that we may not all be using the term LEVEL
in the same way. For example, here is the URL to a
QCA qualifications framework table comparing cross-sector
qualifications (note the use of "level" to include notions of
foundational, intermediate, advanced etc.):
http://www.qca.org.uk/nq/framework/index.asp
In earlier email, Ronan talked of the close coupling or "synergy"
between the notion of LEVEL and our proposed STANDARD
element (careful with the long URL):
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0011&L=dc-education&F=&S=&P=2
88
in which the following examples are given from the
National Vocational Qualifications:
"DCEd-AudienceLevel = NVQ2
DCEd-StandardIdentifier = NVQ3"
In I have these correct, the NVQ2 is as follows:
"Level 2: Competence which involves the application of knowledge
in a significant range of varied work activities, performed in a
variety of contexts. Some of these activities are complex or
non-routine and there is some individual responsibility or
autonomy. Collaboration with others, perhaps through membership
of a work group or team, may often be a requirement.."
and NVQ3: "Level 3: Competences which involves the application of
knowledge in a broad range of varied work activities performed in
a wide variety of contexts, most of which are complex and non-routine.
There is considerable responsibility and autonomy and control or
guidance of others is often required."
So, here is my dilemma. It appears to me that NVQ2 and NVQ3
are not "levels" in the way I have been thinking about it but
rather "standards" (regardless of their label in the NVQ scheme).
They both address competencies--what will/should be achieved; and
we could think up many benchmarks to measure whether they have,
in fact, been achieved.
In elementary/secondary education (as opposed to vocational (which
posses its own problems)) in the U.S., let's look at the following
mathematics "standard" from the McREL Compendium:
"Understands and applies basic and advanced properties of the
concepts of numbers."
This is clearly a standard because it states a competency; however
a competency that would be measured quite differently across
the levels of the U.S. educational system (i.e., grades K-12) through
very different benchmarks. Now, if I take the statement of the
competency as a "standard" in the proposed DC-Ed proposal,
then some grade (or range of grades) in the K-12 continuum would
be the "level". Thus, in this example, the standard (competency)
and the level have been decoupled. This is not to say that a
specific competency/standard with an accompanying benchmark
or set of benchmarks might not be tightly coupled with a given
level in any specific system.
While Ronan's examples from a vocational scheme present a
different set of issues since, unlike my example of a standard
meant to apply to successive steps as a student moves from
entering an formal academic educational system to exiting,
vocational training does not _necessarily_ adhere to an age group
or a simple progression like K-12 or even through the bachelor,
master and PhD levels.
So, my sense of the semantics for LEVEL would be as follows:
"A general statement of the education or training sector of the
audience for the resource being described or a more specific statement
of the location of the audience in terms of its progression through
that sector as expressed in a given national or local scheme."
It's a clumsy first attempt, but is it off the mark?
Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------
Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
The Information School
University of Washington
Suite 370, Mary Gates Hall
Box 352840
Seattle, WA 98195-2840
[log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------
|