The Transnational Qualifications Framework

[Leigh Blackall]

http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/5146

Wayne, what can you tell us about this? I have long been interested in the possibility of an international framework that could act as a kind of benchmark or index to our work on Wikieducator, but I realise that it is politically precarious ground. From my perspective, I worry more about homogenius attitudes to education and assessment led by the likes of some in COL or UNESCO. But at the same time I recognise the value of such a thing - especially if input via a 'wiki way' was to become more of a factor in such publications on the idea...

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[Anil]

Dear Leigh Blackall,

I think your interest and my interest on Transnational curriculum mach
each other. You may like to see the url http://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX
where a proposal for the same is taking shape.

Your collaboration is highly solicited.

Warm regards
Anil
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasad

[Leigh Blackall]

Very interesting Anil. There is a project in Australia called the Training Packages Unpacked. It is basically a simple application that was developed by one of the best programmers I know - Peter Shanks. Peter is a teacher of IT and needed a way to get Australian Assessment Standards into useful formats for online education. One such format is MediaWikiText. Peter uses Wikiversity mostly, so his work resides there, but the potential of his development is huge. If Peter's work could be adapted so that teachers around the world who work with their respective Unit Standards could quickly and easily Wikitext that standard and load it to Wikieducator, then we might see emerging commonalities. We would have to tollerate multiple versions of the same thing, but I believe that over time those teachers might come together online and begin discussing the commonalities and differences of their standards. New Zealand teachers might start talking with Australian teachers. South African teachers might start talking to Canadian. Indians might start talking to English teachers.. and so on. It seems to me that we need to at first encourage teachers who work withing their own National Standards, to start showing us their work on Wikieducator so that we may begin to think Internationally. I worry that it will be a mistake if people who work in International agencies like COL or UNESCO try to design it, they will waste their time and create yet another Standard that will still need to be negotiated with everyone else...

[Anil]

Dear Leigh Blackall,

I agree with you. National standards should be agreed to in the first
place, before progressing to World standards/transnational. WE also
targeting national curriculum first. Let us join hands to make it a
reality.

Can I access Peter's application online?

Warm regards
Anil

> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Wong Leo]

Hey Leigh and Anil ,

This is a sooooooooooooo interesting discussion , Leigh , you bring me home for many things

we are working on some similar projects now too, would be glad to share this with you guys

Leo

2008/7/30 Anil <aple...@gmail.com>

--
HELP 项目论坛
https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject

[Anil]

Hi Leo,

From your teaching experience what you think about the protocol ie
from national standards to transnational standards of curriculum?

Regards
Anil

On Jul 30, 8:36 pm, "Wong Leo" <leolao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Leigh and Anil ,
>
> This is a sooooooooooooo interesting discussion , Leigh , you bring me home
> for many things
>
> we are working on some similar projects now too, would be glad to share this
> with you guys
>
> Leo

> 2008/7/30 Anil <aplett...@gmail.com>

> > > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --

> HELP 项目论坛https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject- Hide quoted text -

[Peter]

Leigh, and all...

This is also something I have been thinking about for a while. It was
somewhat reflected in this google group thread;
http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/41e55202f760370c?hl=en

The way I see it we don't have Open Educational Recourses (OER) for
Education is the combination Content (learning), Assessment and
Accreditation. IMHO, at this time, the OER movement is just the
content or Open Learning Resources (OLR). What we need for OER is Open
Access Assessment (OAA1) and Open Access Accreditation (OAA2). I think
what we are talking about here is a part of the Accreditation. I still
think we need Assessment first, and a very open definition of
assessment. I agree with Leigh and his sentiments about COL and
UNESCO... there needs to be little or no restraints (standards) or
what assessment and accreditation looks like at this time. Why
duplicate the old ideas?

I see the great work of Peter Shanks providing the ability to
aggregate the written standards across many media / formats. It
doesn't provide the tools to assess a persons competency within a
chosen subject area. This again leads back to Assessment.

Does anyone know of an initiative where people are trying to develop
OAA1 with a mass collaborative approach? Anyone have ideas of what
this would look like?

Hmmmm....

> > > > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hidequoted text -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --

> > HELP 项目论坛https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject-Hide quoted text -

[Wayne]

Hi Leigh,

The Transnational Qualifications Framework is an initiative of the member countries of the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth. (See
http://www.col.org/colweb/site/cache/bypass/pid/100?print=1 ).  The VUSSC TQF has developed an impressive concept document  -- well  worth a read:
http://www.colfinder.org/vussc/TQFConceptDocument.pdf

The qualifications authorities involved in this project have been reluctant to release this work under a license which permits derivative works and the document has been released under a CC-BY-NC-ND license which makes it difficult to implement the wiki way. That said, Anil has taken the lead in starting the development of a qualifications framework for WikiEducator.

Obviously, a quality standard that is adopted by a national qualifications framework should not be open to editing. However, I think that it's appropriate to separate the development phase of TQF documents from the final approved version. In the wiki, there are effective mechanisms to protect approved versions from editing eg protecting the pages of an approved version, and once we implement the Flagged Revisions extension we will have more opportunities for proper approval processes.

I think there are exiting opportunities for the WikiEducator community lay the ground work for a qualifications framework the wiki way. As we mature in our approaches which should start exploring the possibilities of engaging the expertise of national qualifications authorities. In this way qualifications frameworks can become living documents.

Cheers
Wayne

[Savithri Singh]

Dear All,

Very interesting discussion.  Have been involved in development of curriculum framework  for schools at the national level in India.  Will be part of any effort to collaboratively dev assessment

Savithri

2008/7/30 Peter <praws...@gmail.com>

--
Dr. Savithri Singh
Principal
Acharya Narendra Dev College
(University of Delhi)
Govindpuri, Kalkaji
New Delhi 110 019

Tel: 2629 4542, 2629 3224, 2641 2547
Fax: (011) 2629 4540
Res: 2584 8151 2584 9786 2584 3496

http://andcollege.du.ac.in

[Anil]

Dear all,

I think we are all having harmonized frequencies in respect of
national and transnational curricula...it means time is ripe with
necessity for us to proceed ...so let us formalize it by setting some
agenda...and invite more WE family members to this discussion...

Let us make it a permanent discussion venue for curriculum, with
intermediate outputs appearing on WE...one assured face to face venue
will be PCF6...at PCF6 we will be concentrating on fine tuning WE
framework of National and Transnational Curricula

Warm regards
Anil

On Jul 30, 10:59 pm, "Savithri Singh" <singh.savit...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Very interesting discussion. Have been involved in development of
> curriculum framework for schools at the national level in India. Will be
> part of any effort to collaboratively dev assessment
>
> Savithri
>

> 2008/7/30 Peter <prawstho...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Leigh, and all...
>
> > This is also something I have been thinking about for a while. It was
> > somewhat reflected in this google group thread;
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/41e5...

> > > > HELP 项目论坛https://groups.google.com/group/helpelephantsliveproject-Hidequotedtext -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Dr. Savithri Singh
> Principal
> Acharya Narendra Dev College
> (University of Delhi)
> Govindpuri, Kalkaji
> New Delhi 110 019
>
> Tel: 2629 4542, 2629 3224, 2641 2547
> Fax: (011) 2629 4540
> Res: 2584 8151 2584 9786 2584 3496
>

> http://andcollege.du.ac.in- Hide quoted text -

[Anil]

Dear all,

I have added a news item about this discussions on
http://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX page

Warm regards
Anil

> >http://andcollege.du.ac.in-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Leigh Blackall]

Good progress.. when we all feel a little more familiar with each other and these ideas, we should meet voice to voice through web conferencing. In the past, I have been hasty to call such meetings, but in such haste the necessary trust and knowledge wasn't there so the meetings made little progress.

Anil, Peter Shanks work can be previewed here: http://tpu.bluemountains.net/

Peter managed to negotiate agreement from the Australian National Training Information Service for the access and reuse of their data. He pointed out to them that what he does with their data is the same as what any teacher does. They make a copy of the original and custom it to their own teaching needs. The source to the original and approved data always remains the same.

It is very disappointing to hear that other National Frameworks are reluctant to allow such a thing to be done. I wonder if the license issue and the technology talk may be blinding them from seeing that it what is proposed is exactly the same as what their teachers already do with the original documents. No one can change the approved units! And nor would we want to.

Peter, regarding your valuable observations of the differences between content, assessment and accreditation: The Australian and New Zealand model is that these original documents are assessment guides. So, with our proposed process, they are in fact Open Access Assessment. In fact, the Australian and New Zealand units (sorry, I don't know about other countries) are already openly accessible online, so Open Access Assessment has always been the case. But what we propose is to strengthen the link between teaching content and assessment requirements. By doing that, we strengthen the possibility of open access accreditation! An it is here that I expose my real motivation for getting involved with OER. Content development is a minor thing.

I think this will be THE most significant development for the OER movement. Content was always an insignificant in this scope. Content will always be unfinished, re contextualised and never perfect. But unfortunately content is what we measure ourselves by, and is what others measure us with. It is also what most of us have more experience with - and so our perspective is inclined more towards content :( The development of open access accreditation was always my primary motivation (I like to think) because it is with open access accreditation that we start to address the atrocious inequality in the world.

But it is here we stand to tip the balance of power, and it is here we will experience the fight. I fear that I am too impatient for what is coming.

2008/8/1 Anil <aple...@gmail.com>

[Peter]

Leigh,

Be patient, we are making progress.

I am in complete agreement with you on all this. And yes, I also see
content as you do. Unfinished and in need of contextualization... And
yes, we are still measured by the content. And I too see open access
accreditation as as one of the elements to level the inequality.

Do you believe assessment comes before accreditation? Or is this more
iterative in that prove this level of competency and you "receive" X
level of accreditation, continue to this level of competency and
"receive" Y level... etc. In my mind it is about proving a "level" of
competency or mastery.

Given all this, I see the work of Peter S. as providing the guidelines
and the "rubric" (if I can use the term loosely) to assess someones
competency. It still requires another person (assessor) to assess the
"student" or apply the guidelines to a persons "proven" competency.
Wouldn't Open Access Assessment remove the intermediary (assessor)?
Couldn't we somehow use the power of mass collaboration to create
assessment instruments that wouldn't require an intermediary other
than the mass itself...?

> 2008/8/1 Anil <aplett...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Leigh Blackall]

Hi Peter, you are taking me into a zone I haven't considered before... interesting proposition.. can assessment be done without the assessor? What are your ideas?

[Anil]

Hi Leigh and Peter,

Your conversations are very much interesting. From our discussion
forums one thing is very clear, that is, our community is gifted with
members having different essential skill sets and ideology backup that
are required to achieve a National as well as Transnational curriculum
framework for WE.

I think, assessment and accreditation frameworks can help in deciding
the type, quantity and quality of content to be developed. It will
backup content development process with clear objective and direction.

Warm regards
Anil
http://wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasad
http://wikieducator.org/India
http://wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX
http://wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX/Professional_Education/Management/MHRM

On Aug 3, 4:04 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter, you are taking me into a zone I haven't considered before...
> interesting proposition.. can assessment be done without the assessor? What
> are your ideas?
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Leigh Blackall]

Hi Anil.. yes, that reminds me and brings me back down to Earth. That IS what assessment units/guides can do first of all.. they offer us a basis with which to develop content or design activity that will at least ne relavent to others who also use that particular assessment guide/unit/learning objective

At Otago Polytechnic, we are first of all using the NZ Qualifications Framework units as a basis for developing our courses on Wikieducator. That way we can be reasonably confident that when other NZrs come onto the WIkieducator, they will find our work, see that it is based on unit standards, and so be more able to adopt and collaborate in the development.

[vmensah]

Dear Anil,

I think the Curriculum Index Project is realy laudable. i have
actually refered to this is some other dialouges i have posted on the
main WE group discussion board. I also added a subject (of my
interest) to it some time ago.

Creating a universal STANDARD for the development of curricula is
essential, especially in this age when the world is becoming (and
indeed has become) a global cottage (not village <smile>). Of course
there will be several issues of Region-Specific, or Community-Specific
identities being necesary to reflect in resultant curricula. However,
the need to ensure that any curriculum developed anywhere in the world
will allow the learner effectivly compete in and contribute to the
global agenda must also be considered. Such a standard will also allow
for effective Learning Synchronisation when learners have to study
from different angles/institutions/platforms, etc.

Victor.

On Jul 30, 10:13 am, Anil <aplett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Leigh Blackall,
>
> I think your interest and my interest on Transnational curriculum mach

> each other. You may like to see the urlhttp://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX

> where a proposal for the same is taking shape.
>
> Your collaboration is highly solicited.
>
> Warm regards

> Anilhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasad

>
> On Jul 30, 12:20 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/5146
>
> > Wayne, what can you tell us about this? I have long been interested in the
> > possibility of an international framework that could act as a kind of
> > benchmark or index to our work on Wikieducator, but I realise that it is
> > politically precarious ground. From my perspective, I worry more about
> > homogenius attitudes to education and assessment led by the likes of some in
> > COL or UNESCO. But at the same time I recognise the value of such a thing -
> > especially if input via a 'wiki way' was to become more of a factor in such
> > publications on the idea...
>
> > --
> > --
> > Leigh Blackall
> > +64(0)21736539
> > skype - leigh_blackall

> > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -

[Leigh Blackall]

Hello again all, perhaps Otago's approach will be of conceptual use here:

1. We use NZ standards of course.
2. We set up a course page that includes links to the standards we are using in the course.
3. The standards are pages in their own right, and have a subpage for learning activities designed for that standard.
4. As our teachers devise new learning activities, they add them as subpages to the related unit standard page.
5. Everytime the course coordinator reviews the courses, they browse the various activity subpages and pick the 'best' ones to link to from the course page.
6. So the student only refers to a course page that links directly to a learning activity. In between is a unit standard page if the student wants to see that. Most ignore the unit standard page and focus on the learning activities.
7. My main point is that, with the activities pages we can develop unlimited variations of learning activities for the various unit standards. Multi lingual, multi cultural, for different types of learners, for different types of teachers.
8. With collaboration, we hope to eventually develop such a range of activities.
9. With such a range, our teachers and students will have more choice in what activity they do in order to meet unit standard assessment requirements
10. The difficulty is getting the collaboration. How can we make our NZ Unit Standards useful to Indians so that we might collaborate on the development of learning activities for that unit? Perhaps if the Transnational Standards project recognised various NZ units as internationally appropriate, then others will look at them more closely and be more inclined to collaborate in the development of learning (and assessment) activities...
    

[Vivek]

Dear all,
Everybody in the civil society must have a right to information,
knowledge and best of education. Wikieducator.org and some other
related sites are a positive step towards democratization of education
and we need to ensure that W.E. promotes dissemination of latest pool
of knowledge. This calls for an international framework that could act
as a kind of benchmark or index or standard in education. No doubt,
local adaptations are required to meet the local needs and socio
cultural aspirations, but idea that some may continue getting
knowledge which became obsolete long ago, should not be acceptable.
Development of international curricula may follow development of
national curricula, but we must develop at least some benchmarks on
the basic standards in teaching, learning, evaluation, research,
assessment, accreditation etc. before designing national curricula
(content), and these standards need to be universal for education to
become truly democratic.
In some areas – say in social sciences, students are still being
taught what is 'ancient'. i work in the fields of entrepreneurship
development and economics, and in entrepreneurship development
curriculum is still based upon thought developed in 1960's and
discredited in 1970's and 80's. My economics students are also not
being exposed to the latest developments in the field. My friends from
some other faculties feel the same. At least we can start with some
areas, where curricula needs to be revised urgently, but the contents
should be decided only after deciding about the benchmarks in the
other fundamental areas.

Vivek Sharma

On Aug 6, 4:13 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello again all, perhaps Otago's approach will be of conceptual use here:
>

>    1. We use NZ standards of course.
>    2. We set up a course page that includes links to the standards we are
>    using in the course.
>    3. The standards are pages in their own right, and have a subpage for

>    learning activities designed for that standard.

>    4. As our teachers devise new learning activities, they add them as

>    subpages to the related unit standard page.

>    5. Everytime the course coordinator reviews the courses, they browse the

>    various activity subpages and pick the 'best' ones to link to from the
>    course page.

>    6. So the student only refers to a course page that links directly to a

>    learning activity. In between is a unit standard page if the student wants
>    to see that. Most ignore the unit standard page and focus on the learning
>    activities.

>    7. My main point is that, with the activities pages we can develop

>    unlimited variations of learning activities for the various unit standards.
>    Multi lingual, multi cultural, for different types of learners, for
>    different types of teachers.

>    8. With collaboration, we hope to eventually develop such a range of
>    activities.
>    9. With such a range, our teachers and students will have more choice in

>    what activity they do in order to meet unit standard assessment requirements

>    10. The difficulty is getting the collaboration. How can we make our NZ

> > > > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hide quoted text -

[Peter]

Hmmm... Leigh.

I see all this discussion is about standards and assessment against
such standards and the subsequent accreditation if someone has been
assessed to be competent against the standards. The idea I am wanting
to explore from a mass collaboration perspective is who (or what) is
assessing against the standards? Is it a series of TF, MCQ, Case
Studies, Peer Assessments, Assignments, Exams, Participation, Etc...
In general, all this still seems like instructors assessing
students...

The idea I'd like to kick around is we build upon tagging against a
piece of OER content. The tag then ties to an inventory of assessment
instruments for the particular piece of content. tags can include
course name, standard or learing outcome identifier. Just imagine how
many questions could be created for English 100... The assessment
instruments (TF, MCQ, Case Studies, Peer Assessments, Etc) are created
the wiki way with versions, contexts, etc... by different
participants. A running tally of peoples score against questions are
kept, and which version of the question, but also all the metrics
regarding the question, and a running tally for people and their
creation of instruments. We build a community around the whole Open
Access Assessment. One great way to learn something is to have to
create an assessment for the material. Just think what this could do
for online study groups... test your friends... We could build on this
and put a whole community around it. Top scorers, top contributors,
"smartest" participant.... etc...

Am I making any sense, or have I just had one to many beer?... Or has
this already been tried?

Cheers...

On Aug 3, 4:04 am, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter, you are taking me into a zone I haven't considered before...
> interesting proposition.. can assessment be done without the assessor? What
> are your ideas?
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Leigh Blackall]

It makes sense Peter, but I can't yet see how it is different to what I outlined in the Otago developments... the activity pages we create - they are also assessment pages.. what's more, they can be created by anyone. So the types of assessment activities you describe could quite easily be included in the list of pages linked to the NZ standard.. perhaps you are challenging the notion that we base the developments on national (or international) standards? I think alternative assessment to alternative "standards" can still be cohabitant, its just that we (Otago and this Transnational discussion) are focusing on accreditation that will advance the prospects of employment and better income for people - and at the moment that is determined by how well someone meets their national assessment standard. The fact that some one does the assessing - it doesn't necessarily follow that an instructor does this, we actually have people who only job is assessing and so they are quite separate from the teaching role, and self assessment to some degree is certainly possible - in fact it would assist the final assessor and reduce the cost of assessment somewhat. In the end however, I think an un bias third party to verify that the national standard has been met would still be required as a final sign off. What you describe could be any number of activities that make that sign off a more simple step.. such as perhaps a Justice of the Peace sign off or something.. in other words, taking the majority of the costly work out of the actual assessment process.. somehow

[Leigh Blackall]

Hello Vivik:

No doubt, local adaptations are required to meet the local needs and socio
cultural aspirations, but idea that some may continue getting
knowledge which became obsolete long ago, should not be acceptable.

I think we should be very careful of this Vivik. Who says what is obsolete? We government workers could be playing agents in cultural genocide (as we have done in some countries before - banning languages, religious ceremonies, or traditional medicine that we later learnt to have value). For example, steam engines and black smithing.. technologies and techniques that some today say is obsolete, but others say is or will be highly sort after again in the future. Or the teaching of a Creationist perspective of the world, some say it is 'obsolete' and others say it is or will be relevant again... the way I see it, I would very much like an international assessment standards to be as culturally rich and diverse as the world is today, and that it might actually play a part in helping us to bridge our cultural misunderstandings. For example, what would be the assessment standard for me to know and understand the beliefs and practices of Hinduism, or something specific within it?

Sorry if I misunderstand you...

[Anil]

Dear Victor,

It is great pleasure to see you at Curriculum Index node with a very
relevant topic of present day management - Corporate Events
Management.

I agree with your view about the requirement of universal standards.
It is very much required to nullify information as well as development
divides.

Warm regards
Anil

> > > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Anil]

Hi Peter,

I also share your anxiety about ‘who is assessing about (what)
standards’. Leigh and Vivek have just torch lighted to a different
dimension of this anxiety. Still I am (I think all of us are)
optimistic that through continued discussions and dialogues (the
natural way of tagging the content) the differences with respect to
the standards and assessment will be diluted to pave way for a
transnational curriculum framework and supporting content. For that
purpose the educationalists have to work together as in a global
village!

I think the Leigh theory and Peter theory are not opposing theories,
but balancing theories <smile>

Warm regards
Anil

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Leigh Blackall]

Where to from here?

Anil, is there a website that lists your national standards?

NZ Standards are here: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/index.do
Australian Standards are here: http://www.ntis.gov.au/?find

What we already do here is search both NZ and Australian standards. Sometimes the Australian's have assessment guides (standards) that we don't have, other times we have guides that they don't. The point is we are becoming familiar with Australian standards so that when we write our NZ courses we can say, "oh, by the way, our course matches that Australian course" - a small step towards a small measure of international recognition. If we new of other national standards, we could start getting familiar with them as well...

[wes...@gmail.com]

Leigh

The final concept document is at: http://www.col.org/vussc (link on
the right hand side). It was created in February this year by the
majority of the 30 small states participating in VUSSC. The management
committee that was established by the NQA CEOs will meet later this
year to finalise the detail needed: to add descriptions, work flows,
etc. It all is based on existing national qualification agencies and
the evolving regional qualification agencies. It does not replace or
complete with them.

There is a growing acceptance of "more input" and public comment on
matters of qualifications frameworks and this idea will be further
stimulated through the TQF Management Committee, which may influence
the national processes as well. There is the opportunity to create
forums for constructive feedback to these national entities. There
might be an evolving middle ground where wikis and blogs could support
these processes while receiving the kind of guidelines and more fixed
standards that add credibility to the efforts being make by people
involved in communities like WikiEducator.

If there is any serious interest in working with the Transnational
Qualifications Framework I would be happy to help to make the
connections.

Paul

[Vivek]

Friends,

I fully agree that there might be a danger of indoctrination....
My point is that we must have a mechanism to make latest pool of
knowledge available to all. Local adaptations must take place, to meet
local aspirations,sentiments and socio-cultural needs, but there
should also be a common standard of education and common benchmarks.

Pl .also see a similar discussion in progress at the WE google group
titled Benchmarks and International curricula

Vivek Sharma

On Aug 9, 4:31 am, "pw...@col.org" <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leigh
>

> The final concept document is at:http://www.col.org/vussc(link on

[wes...@gmail.com]

Hi here is another update. The CCNC standards that were created by the
South African Qualification Authority (SAQA) are available to the
WikiEducator and other communities for use. You can understand that
once the "standard" has been changed, it can no longer be called a
"SAQA standard" - but the contents is available for customisation into
a new standard by anyone else. The copyright requirement is not
covered by existing Creative Commons licenses which would be a
"derivative - no attribution" license. This means you may take the
content, change it as you like and publish it under your name
(personal, organisation, etc.), provided there is NO attribution to
the original source. A reader should in no way get the impression that
the evolving standard is a SAQA or COL standard, but rather, that is
is a WikiEducator standard.

The existing two documents on COL's website are in PDF format so I'll
arrange for them to be converted into doc and odt and added back to
the site along with the pdfs, plus a releasing note outlining what I
have said above. From there you can reformat the documents to wiki-
syntax and publish them with any mention of SAQA or COL.

Paul

On Aug 8, 4:31 pm, "pw...@col.org" <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leigh
>

> The final concept document is at:http://www.col.org/vussc(link on

[Chris]

Leigh and everyone on this thread - sorry to be joining a bit late in
the conversation. Anil's note on WE caught my eye.

Regarding standards frameworks and how to organize content around them
in WE - we used Leigh's "activity pages" solution. It worked well for
us on WE when we organized the international finance content according
to the assessment framework of the professional association (NASBITE).
Their standards are feely available (though not modifiable) and the
test for individuals to get certified is fee-based. You can see more
http://wikieducator.org/MSU_Global/International_Business_Resources_Project

Regarding alternative/open assessments - this is a very interesting
area. There is some work going on here by the University of the
Western Cape where they are seeking ways to evaluate experience in
communities of practice (including virtual) for college transfer
credit.

I like Paul's idea for a mass project - maybe it's a contest - where
novices and experts can contribute questions and answers, and also
"take" the test for tracking - and the top questions would be ranked
somehow - yeah, and we can make a television show around it (smile).

Cheers,

- Chris

[Anil]

Hi Leigh, Paul, Cris and all others,

In India the activities for consolidating a National Qualifications
Framework is in progress. UGC, NCERT, NAAC ete are working at
different aspects of this. Now the output of all these efforts
required to be brought into a single database to make the NQF a
reality. Indian Wiki Educators will be providing voluntary support to
this national initiative. A WE page, linked to India node, also has
been set up to discussions this matter at
http://www.wikieducator.org/India/National_Qualifications_Framework

I think, the countries that are engaged in finalizing their National
Qualification Framework may be encouraged to refer to the existing
NQFs so that it will become the first step towards Transnational
Qualifications Framework by rework/adoption of the existing NQFs. It
will become a natural way of familiarization and mutual
understanding.

And Hi, Paul thanks for the arrangements to share the VUSSC related
documents with WE community.

Hi, Chris thanks for joining us and a very useful link reference.

And friends, I think it is time to prepare an intermediate report on
our discussions so far. It will help us to purse this discussion
forward to help the initiatives for development of National as well as
Transnational Qualifications Framework. A page has already been set
up for this purpose at
http://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX/tqf_discussion_summary

Warm regards
Anil

On Aug 12, 5:53 am, Chris <cge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leigh and everyone on this thread - sorry to be joining a bit late in
> the conversation. Anil's note on WE caught my eye.
>
> Regarding standards frameworks and how to organize content around them
> in WE  - we used Leigh's "activity pages" solution. It worked well for
> us on WE when we organized the international finance content according
> to the assessment framework of the professional association (NASBITE).
> Their standards are feely available (though not modifiable) and the

> test for individuals to get certified is fee-based. You can see morehttp://wikieducator.org/MSU_Global/International_Business_Resources_P...

[Leigh Blackall]

Quite a job to summarise, but I agree - it would be worth doing.. I wouldn't know where to start!

Could we change away from the use of the word curriculum?

I have always understood curriculum to be quite a fine level of detail that a teacher or group of students set for themselves, including break times, sequencing, lesson plans, etc.

What we are talking about (I think) is syllabus, competency units, assessment standards

I've added this discussion point to the discussion page, however for some reason I don't get email alerts when a discussion thread gets a reply, so I will probably not be very present as day to day stuff takes over.

[Anil]

Dear Leigh,

Surely, let us use the standard term Qualification Framework in our
discussions, that can accomodate our entire agenda upto content-
activity level.

with the permission of all friends on this discussion forum and other
community members let me move the url http://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX
to http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework

...yea I've moved it.

In two days the first summary of our discussions will be posted at
http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_summary

Warm regards

Anil

> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -

[Anil]

Dear all,

First draft of the summary of our first round discussions are now
available at http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_summary
please visit for comments/revision, so that we can finalise it and
move to the second round of discussions.

Warm regards
Anil

On Aug 13, 9:59 pm, Anil <aplett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Leigh,
>
> Surely, let us use the standard term Qualification Framework in our
> discussions, that can accomodate our entire agenda upto content-
> activity level.
>
> with the permission of all friends on this discussion forum and other
> community members let me move the urlhttp://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX

> tohttp://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework

>
> ...yea I've moved it.
>

> In two days the first summary of our discussions will be posted athttp://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_su...

> > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Peter]

Anil,

Great summary. Thank-you. Reading this through reminds me of the
importance of making summaries when people collaborate online. I see
what is important here is how we are being "hands-off" when it comes
to using the standards and how standards can be sub-classed or have
sub-pages where they can be put into context for language, culture,
etc.

I had to smile when I also read this earlier today;
http://blog.genyes.com/index.php/2008/08/18/why-curriculum-wikis-wont-work/
Some of what is said I agree with here. I really don't believe the
author of this article (or position) recognizes the ability for wikis
to have sub-pages or sub-classed that reflect more than one teacher
(instructional designers) position on curriculum. I believe the same
thread of curriculum can have many version branches and still follow
the standard while also varying content to be within a different
idealogy, culture, etc...

Peter

On Aug 18, 7:59 pm, Anil <aplett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First draft of the summary of our first round discussions are now

> available athttp://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_su...

> > > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hidequoted text -

[aprasad]

Dear Paul,

Thank you for the very supportive message from you.

From your message I understand that WE community has two options:

1. Use the documents with the same license and without changing the content.
2. If the contents are changed, it should not be referred to as a product of the National Qualification authorities involved in developing the same.

 Am I right?

 

If I am right, I think, the second option will be suitable for WE, to supplement and update the content regularly in a collaborative way. In that context I hope the new product can have CC-BY-SA, am I right?

 

Warm regards

Anil

On 8/19/08, Paul West <pw...@col.org> wrote:

Anil

Regarding the TQF Concept Document at:
http://www.colfinder.org/vussc/TQFConceptDocument.pdf
You will notice that it has a "no-derivatives" license on it. I would like
to provide one extra flexibility with this email. While the "ND" restriction
usually does not allow cutting up the work (the restriction does allow "fair
use" and complete use, but not cutting up what you might want to use).

We can provide permission to cut and reuse any section of the document, no
matter how large or small. If the contents of the document are used as is,
in part or in whole, attribution should be provided.

If you need to change the contents and create a new document, then use the
"derivative - non-attribution" rule, that is the same as for the two
standards documents on the CCNC. This means that a new document would emerge
that would not be the responsibility of the group of national qualification
authorities that collaborated to create the one on the website. The new
document created in this way may provide useful perspectives for national
qualifications authorities in due course.

I hope this helps.

Paul

--

Warm regards

Anil
http://wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasad
http://wikieducator.org/India

http://wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework
http://wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX/Professional_Education/Management/MHRM

Skype: apletters

[Vivek]

Dear all,

I think that while conducting this activity, we have to bear another
factor in mind that this is to be implemented soon. My experience and
interaction with education system in India has taught me an important
lesson – politics must be handled carefully. Most sincere and well
meaning efforts are shot down without a good reason. Many recent cases
can be cited to support this. A proposal was made to start Masters in
Business Economics in my University. The proposed syllabus was based
upon best internationally recognized and one most successful in India.
The syllabus was rejected with a comment that the syllabus is
directionless! The syllabus approved included economics papers which
were comparable to undergraduate levels. Another course, (to be taught
as optional additional subject) on soft skills which included skills
like assertive behavior, speed reading, cross cultural and gender
sensitization etc was rejected with a comment that such a course is
not required. A course on entrepreneurship based upon international
studies and mapping of entrepreneurial training activities was
approved but the practical training sessions were rejected and deleted
from syllabus. There are many such cases. The stakeholders – teachers,
administrators, teacher associations, publishers, students and so on
have their own interests, which will have to be kept in mind while
development of curricula and benchmarks.
I feel if the transnational curriculum development process involves
and manages stakeholders appropriately, only then the desired results
can be attained. Otherwise there can be a resistance to change, which
may acquire political hue.

Vivek

On Aug 19, 7:58 pm, aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> Thank you for the very supportive message from you.
>
> From your message I understand that WE community has two options:
>

>    1. Use the documents with the same license and without changing the
>    content.
>    2. If the contents are changed, it should not be referred to as a product

> > > From: Anil <aplett...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > > To: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>
> > > Cc: Wayne Mackintosh <wmackint...@col.org>, <leighblack...@gmail.com>,
> > > <cge...@gmail.com>, Paul G West <pw...@col.org>, <pro...@gmail.com>,
> > > <leolao...@gmail.com>, <prawstho...@gmail.com>, <mensah.vic...@gmail.com
> > >,
> > > Savithri Singh <singh.savit...@gmail.com>, Patricia Schlicht
> > > <PSchli...@col.org>
> > > Subject: Re: The Transnational Qualifications Framework
>
> > > Dear all,
>
> > > First draft of the summary of our first round discussions are now
> > > available at
>

> >http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_su...

> > >>> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hidequoted text -

>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Warm regards
>

> Anilhttp://wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasadhttp://wikieducator.org/Indiahttp://wikieducator.org/Qualification_Frameworkhttp://wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX/Professional_Education/Manag...
>
> Skype: apletters

[Anil]

Dear all,

Let us commence the 2nd round of this discussion at
http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/16480d37bb02472d

Warm regards
Anil

> > > >>> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com-Hidequotedtext -

>
> > > >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Warm regards
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -