Draft of the Information Management Functional Requirements

[russdev]

Here is draft of the Information Management Functional Requirements from becta ignore the date in the draft.

 

Views comments can be sent to email but also place views here and we will do same as with naace stuff and send an official response

 

Russ

imp_requirements_draft_v0_3-1.doc

[alan-d]

I'll read it tomorrow - so don't get humpty and bump this post

[russdev]

lol

[alan-d]

The above refers to another document which gives more detail - do you have a link to it?

[russdev]

do you mean vle standards document not read mis draft fully yet

 

russ

[alan-d]

Good god man!! What u been doing all day? Hurry up

[russdev]

Ok here goes the document that it references is here please note that section is NOT up for review this has been decided in seperate review proccess.

 

All bits after "For consideration" that views are needed on plus start of section two and all of section one as well ...

 

Russ

learning_platform.pdf

[alan-d]

Just a couple of observations.

 

Access to the platform remotely - Access to what exactly? I believe that a minimum criteria should be listed as to what parents are entitled to have access to. There is also an issue with curriculum programs as far as licensing goes - if they are saying that pupils should be able to access everything from home including programs then cost of licensing could rocket.

 

Assessment management - 'This should include exam entries results and coursework.' - are we taliking about coursework results or the actual course work?

 

Lesson Planning - If this is to be accessible nationally then it should state excatly what open format should be used.

 

Staffing - The management of personnel could include.. - What?

 

Coursework - again a specific format should be agreed and published.

 

Cutomisable interface - I would recommend that this be scrapped and reworded to say that custisable interfaces should be available only within the limits required by DIDA recommendadtions.

[GrumbleDook]

Just a couple of observations.

 

Access to the platform remotely - Access to what exactly? I believe that a minimum criteria should be listed as to what parents are entitled to have access to. There is also an issue with curriculum programs as far as licensing goes - if they are saying that pupils should be able to access everything from home including programs then cost of licensing could rocket.

 

Remote access to the Learning Platform does not always mean remote access to the school network and applications on it. Putting it basically, it means access to the web-based interface that allows for access to student files, electronic resources, assessment tools and relevant information. It does not mean giving them free access to ProDesktop or Dreamweaver.

 

Assessment management - 'This should include exam entries results and coursework.' - are we taliking about coursework results or the actual course work?

 

We are talking about coursework marks as and when they are available.

 

Most ePortfolio systems will allow for users to see the results of marked work.

 

Lesson Planning - If this is to be accessible nationally then it should state excatly what open format should be used.

 

This cannot be set as a standard format as lesson plans, schemes of work (or if you prefer ... mid term plans) and the associated teaching structure that goes behind the delivery varies from school to school. There will never be a standard way of teaching, only ever an acceptable minimal level of areas that need to be covered.

 

This is one of the areas that is functional rather than technical, and so it should be sorted out by whoever looks after the teaching and learning within senior management at the relevant schools.

 

Staffing - The management of personnel could include.. - What?

 

Partly this is related to curriculum management ... who is teaching what, where and when with what resources ... partly this is about holding relevant details of personnel for tracking of information (eg, CPD).

 

Coursework - again a specific format should be agreed and published.

 

Formats are agreed by the exam boards based on representation from specified groups (eg Becta, DfES) and overseen by QCA. Where possible this is happening (DiDA is an example) but is not completed.

 

Cutomisable interface - I would recommend that this be scrapped and reworded to say that customisable interfaces should be available only within the limits required by DIDA recommendadtions.

 

What about other courses other than DiDA? The customisable interface also has to be included to allow for accessibility (now a point of law), as well as giving schools the flexibilty to adapt systems to fit in with the rest of the school. If a school has spent considerable time "branding" its resources then they should be able to continue this for a number of reasons ... to promote the ethos of the school, to allow for vertical learning (showing clear progression between years), to allow for customisation by subject ... and that is without getting on to the styles of learning and teaching ... which vary from school to school, from department to department.

 

HTH

[alan-d]

I agree with everything you say. What I really failed to say was that if they are to publish a document like this then it should be clear as to what the meanings are.

 

It would be terrible if things were left to interpretation. Hopefully this will happen in the final publication