ICT Achievement Standards

Should there be specific achievement standards for ICT in the NCEA qualifications, yes.

The current Unit Standards are more focussed towards the skills of using an application, whether it be word processing, spreadsheet, presentation or desktop publishing. Where are the computer science ones?
There are 2780, 2781, basic computer fundamentals. 18740 is a basic level 2 programming one that gets you to design the most basic of basic programs, you don't even have to use a recognized programming language. you could use gamemaker with its GUI interface.

There is no ITO (Industry Training Organization) in charge of Computing in schools, there is no real organizations looking after computing unit standards, there is the NACAQ, which looks at the tertiary side of things. It needs someone else to come along and get the government to recognize that the Technology Achievement Standards just don't cut the mustard when it comes to computer science.

You can get the Technology Achievement Standards by planning and putting on a cultural performance, or putting on a play. We need specific ones to look at programming, computer ethics, computer fundamentals.

If we want more IT graduates in New Zealand then we have to start really looking at what is happening within secondary schools. Can everyone use a word processor? But can everyone describe why when importing another text document in that all these hieroglyphics come up instead of what should be coming up?

Technology Achievement Standards have a defined technology process you have to go through, where ICT programming has a clearly defined SDC (System Development Cycle). These two conflict with each other.

Looking at the this, the following list came out of the meeting
Rationale for Achievement Standards in ICT (Computer Science)

1. If Technology Achievement standards are used in other areas of content, we don't have enough Achievement Standards available for students to complete a wholly Achievement Standard assessed course.
2. There are specific knowledge, skills and processes that are not covered by the current Technology Achievement Standards as they differ in their assessed processes.
3. The unit standards do not cater for meritorious or excellence approaches to the assessments and as a rider to this will not encourage provide scholarship or Scholarship respectively.
4. Student motivation is limited by Unit Standards as they do not encourage students to push for "greater heights."
5. There are problems with the allocation of credits if the Technology Acheivement Standards are used elsewhere (no double dipping)
6. We would like standards that are better suited to pathways in ICT that leads to I.T. graduates and other more academic post secondary learning. These standards are less industry orientated and more computer science based.
7. To provide Achievement Standards that could complement the proposed ICT Curriculum Framework.
8. ICT is not treated as a tool for the purposes of assessments with these Achievement Standards, but as an area of discipline in its own right. (The tools are created by those working in the computer science line to contrast this with the users of ICT)
9. There are concepts, processes and practices in Computing that have existed for many years and will continue to do so. These concepts, processes and practices lend themselves to assessment with these proposed Computer Science Achievement Standards.
10. As there is no ITO in the ICT area, the Unit Standards are not being developed to cater for the type of learning that encourages higher thinking structures. the style of unit standards is also an obstacle in this regard.
11. The Technology Process in the Achievement Standards does not really cover the needs of the Systems Development Process which is more commonly recognized in IT education and industry.

Looking at this and what has been developed, I think I would have the change the title of the course that I run at school, away from the programming and more look at Computer Science, i can just see the leaders of learning face when I say that I want to change the name, "Oh, not again"

12CSI <- I like this, I can't use 12SCI that relates to Science.
12 Computer Science :)