Draft Matrix
Attention all Media Studies teachers:
As you will be aware NAME have the contract to align the Media Studies standards to the New Zealand Curriculum. The work of the writing panel, up until this point, has been to create a draft matrix. We would now like some feedback and indication of support before going ahead and writing the draft standards.
Please note you will have the opportunity for full consultation in March 2009.
The panel would appreciate feedback by the 30th November to inform the next writing stage.
You can access the matrix along with supporting documents and an explanation of the subject alignment process and progress here.
After you have read this information please feedback here to let us know what you think. We would appreciate any comments you have to inform our thinking. Click on comments below to add your feedback.
You can use the RSS feed on this blog to make sure you are updated on all posts and comments.
If you have any queries about the review process, please contact Deb Thompson deborah.thompson@auckland.ac.nz or
Josephine Maplesden maplesjb@hghs.school.nz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePositive changes overall;
ReplyDeleteMy one concern is credit value/scope of the plan/produce standards.
It proved difficult to assess 'pre-production' activities at different levels when the standard was separate at L3; this lead to the incorporation of post concept pre-production activities into 90606 in version 2 of that standard. To my mind, 90606 works well as an activity that combines the bulk of practical planning with production, as often practical planning and production occur at the same time (at least for video production). The concept standard, 90604, also works well as a discrete statement of aims.
I support a separate concept standard at L2, but would prefer to see subsequent pre-production activities staying with the production standard. This could lead to a 2/8 credits split, which would better reflect workload, and allow integrated practical planning and production.
Having said this, I will be happy either way; I am stating a preference; however, it does seem to me rather pointless to plan and not produce, and the 2 activities should be simultaneous to some extent.
Also- how will we assess A/M/E based on pre-production planning? It did not work with 90605. Will it all be based on the concept?
Cheers,
Andrew Tebbutt
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI think the changes look on the whole excellent.. just (a potentially stupid) question... is this to come into effect 2010 or can we start earlier? I see a lot of the changes as positive (esp making representation an internal and combining close reading and narrative at level 2-this seems like it will make my program much more cohesive and less time intensive essentially teaching the same thing twice.
however, queries:
will the "plan a media product..." at level 2 seem like a repetition when the students do it again at L3? we do news reports at L2 and doco at L3 (although, this may change to doco OR short film next year) and i fear what is required may prove too similar across the levels... I mean a storyboard/list of conventions used/script etc are hard to determine different levels at (A/M/E) let alone L2/L3...
also agree with Andrew's comments above about the pointlessness of completing all pre-pro tasks for production that will not be made...
overall VEDRY HAPPY with changes... seems so logical and simple!
keep up the fantastic work,
Me
Hi
ReplyDeleteYes it seems that this process will not be happening next year. According to the timeline from the ministry "the standards aligned to the New Zealand Curriculum would be progressively rolled out from 2010. Level One standards will be introduced in 2010, Level Two in 2011 and Level Three in 2012." I realise that is a bit of a pain because some of us would like some of these changes earlier, however it does give us the space to realy develop soem material BEFORE the thing actually happens.
Josephine
thanks for answering that... I think for next year I would like to try and combine narrative and close viewing anyway into one (massive)task... i think it would cut down my teaching time and avoid crossover... any ideas on whether this would be feasible? im thinking they have to comment on both aspects in one task...
ReplyDeletethanks again
Me
Hi Naomi,
ReplyDeletethe next task for the alignment group is to write the draft standards - once we have some feedback that suggests we are heading in the right direction. You will get to consult on those in March, so if you can hang off til then you might get some idea of how it could be done. This is one of the biggest changes we are proposing, so it would be good to get LOTS of feedback on this one please.
The alignment process is an important one for our subject and perhaps provides a springboard for development of other initiatives that we have thought important, such as a Level 1 course in Media Studies. The writing group has done a good job to date and, on the whole the changes look sensible,workable and positive. I have had little experience with Unit Standards or FaEM standards, so I can't comment with any authority on these, but I would like to make some comments about the guidelines as "the basis for media studies courses at a senior level."
ReplyDelete1. We should encourage all five concepts and three strands in our Media Studies courses - at least ensuring that students have been exposed to these by the time they have reached Year 13. I don't think we should be picking and choosing and leaving out essential bits, just because they are too hard or because we haven't found material available easily. These are separate issues that can be dealt with later.
2. We are not teaching an English course. One of the fundamental ingredients which distinguish us from English, and one which we should celebrate, is the "media process," i.e. understanding of the pathway from PRODUCT through MEDIATION to AUDIENCE. All of these aspects should provide a basis for any Media Studies course. One of the best ways of understanding this, and another essential ingredient of Media Studies is the production process, ie. making a media product.
3. I would like to see a little more emphasis on writing as part of our Level 2 and 3 structure. We have split the production process up into planning (AS90604) and creating a product (AS90605) at Level 3. Should we not do something similar for Level 2. This might provide for greater emphasis on scripting etc.
4. I agree that we should provide for only two exams at Level 2, as we have done at Level 3. "Representations" (AS90278) seems the logical one to become an internal.
Thankyou for the hard work you are doing on all our behalf.
Peter Hewson
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeletewe have done the same at Level 2 (split off the design and plan from the production). Check out the rationale document which accompanies the matrix. Thanks for your comments - we will consider them. We totally agree with your first comment about teaching all concepts - all we are saying is that you don't need to ASSESS everything.
Deb
Hi
ReplyDeleteLooks good.
Thoughts....
Agree three exams at Level Two to many.
Would the changes allow schools (e.g. Time factor) to teach a 24 credit programme. Does anyone have thoughts on this?
Changes seem at long way off.
Like the idea of doing Narrative and Close next year, so will be watching that one.
Would like clear information on A, M and E particularly at Level 3.
Thanks for tha great work.
Sue Harker
HFHS
Hi
ReplyDeleteI think that it all looks good and am particularly happy with the representation standard however I too find it difficult to assess pre-production activites.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteGreat job guys. I like the changes to Level 2 and agree with comments
above re: merging of 2.2 & 2.5 as well as the shift of representations to
internal.
I appreciate the alignment of Level 2 & 3 as far as the production
planning is concerned. it annoyed me that at Level two we assessed
production and use of Technology and then at Level 3 we assessed planning
and production - your proposal is much more satisfactory.
Thanks again,
Jo Harford
King's High School
I would like to also add my thanks to the team of people who have put so much effort in to developing the proposed curriculum and revising the AS to reflect this.
ReplyDeleteLike many others, I too have elected to remove one AS at each year level. I chose not to complete representation at level 2. I always felt a bit uneasy that students were missing such a vital part of what Media Studies to me is all about. I appreciate the way the proposed curriculum would ensure content is covered but as you say, Deb, not necessarily assessed.
I can see the huge benefit in bringing representation internal and also to combine close reading and narrative at Level 2.
I also totally agree with the changes to the Level 3 close reading standard. I found it frustrating having to teach a technical close reading separately to a theory reading and some of my more capable students were not achieving to their true capability due to the segmentation of these two elements as they were getting tangled up worried about repetition of material.
Also, I really, really like the proposed changes to the Level 3 Investigation Standard - having the opportunity to develop this as an inquiry unit I believe encourages students to engage with the material at a much deeper level - and it is exciting to see that an inquiry approach could also be taken at level 2 through the representation unit also.
And finally, I love the idea of evaluation becoming ongoing reflection in the production AS. This is far more meaningful as it implies that students can be making changes to their product as they go as a result of reflection and discussion - which is exactly what they should be doing. To formalise this validates for the students the importance of this part of the production process.
I agree with the changes made, especially the awarding of credits for the planning as well as the production. I also agree with making the representations an internal. Well done.
ReplyDeleteMavis
I strongly agree with Andrew's comments about keeping the practical planning as part of the production process. To justify increasing the credit value of the concept to 4 credits you would probably need to incorporate more detailed planning into the standard, however I agree that this is better included as part of the production and support the 2/8 credit split as being a better choice. When our Year 13's do documentary, the bulk of their real planning, ie. the 'nitty gritty' of scene breakdown,script, i/v questions, prop list, shot list...took place after the concept and treatment had been completed; it was an integral part of the production process, enabling the transition from idea to reality. The concept is 'conceptual,' an abstraction. I think we need to be strengthening the value of the practical production component and I don't know that increasing the value of the plan does that - it strengthens the theoretical over the practical I think.
ReplyDeleteThese look really good. My one worry is about he synchronisation of the steps - that level 2 unit standards won't be deleted before the level 1 achievement standards are rolled out.
ReplyDeleteWe have a very popular year 11 media course which is based on a mix of achievement and unit standards, all from level 2. If the unit standards are deleted, then we have to start using FAEM or other standards as a stopgap until the level 1 Achievement Standards arrive. This would be farcical, as we'd have two separate jobs of drafting - one to put together an interim course, and then do the whole job again when the proper achievement standards arrive.
I'm sure NAME are onto this and that you're pressuring NZQA to get the order of events right. I have every confidence in you guys, but not necessarily in NZQA.
Apologies if this is an obvious point that may already have been made by others, but I just wanted to add my voice, as it is the only real issue I can see here, but it is a big one.
I am happy to discuss this further with anyone if that will help, in person, on the phone or whatever. My email is ja@cashmere.school.nz
Hi Richard
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments
I agree that it is important that the Level 2 US stay there until a Level 1 course is created. We were most insistent about this and will keep on harping on about it as we realise that it is a problem. have you filled in the survey for Year 11 courses (It is up the top right of this page). We just want a bit of ammunition to find out about what you do
Cheers
Josephine Maplesden
I am also very worried about the elimination of Unit Standards as we also have a very popular Year 11 Media Course (similar to Cashmere) and I think Level 1 Achievement Standards should be a top priority for NZQA. The sooner the better as the Level 2 Unit Standards are a bit of a nightmare really.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the changes I see as positive. The merging of 2.2 and 2.5 seems logical, as does the elimination of 2.7, which was a frustrating standard to be moderated on when it links so closely with 2.6. Good to see 3.2 get a shake up – this seemed to be one of the more problematic Achievement Standards – I wish we implement these changes next year, oh well!
Much like English, there’s a push for more internal assessment. I agree that three standards is too much to do in an end-of-year exam, but if they want quality assessing and moderation they have to be prepared to help us resource this. My major issue is that we have good guidance and resources on these new standards and exemplars for how to assess them. There needs to be a variety of Internal Assessments on TKI for us to use.
Kate Straka - Westlake Boys High School
Okay so this post may come out of left-field as feedback has been for the most part quite positive.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah I think the work is great with a lot of simplification and direction placed in each standard and level.
My concern comes with merging 2.2 and 2.5, and the related alteration to 3.2. Theoretically I understand the merge and can see where there has been confusion in assessment in the past, but can see where they do narrative and technical elements can be assessed separately as well. But I accept change. My problem comes with offering a 5 credit internal at Level 2 and then in the same vein a 3 credit internal at Level 3 - surely this would signal some discrepancy to the students. 3.2 is really unwieldy but stripping it back to half of what it was and offering less credits than it's Level 2 counterpart does not make much sense.
My other big concern is still at Level 3 with "analyse perceptively" as Excellence criteria. Can't be just go back to evaluate, surely that fits more in line with critically analyse than analyse perceptively does. Plus students find it has a much clearer distinction.
Just some rambling thoughts.
Ian Thomas - Saint Kentigern College
Hi Jo and Debs
ReplyDeleteIn general I like the look of the work you have been doing. I do have a couple of concerns/issues. I like the way that close reading and narrative are currently split into two AS. For me they are quite different and distinctive. When we teach them there is very little overlap and these two concepts are fundamental to Media. In close reading we focus on the technical side (camera, sound, mise en scene, editing and lighting) For narrative we look at the Three act structure, Conflict, Patterns of development, Cause and Effect etc. Without a solid understanding of all of these ideas student will miss some really important parts of Media. Maybe the splitting of Close reading and Narrative works better in a film context than other medium. But as is I feel that I short change them in the Narrative section as there are some many more issues I could talk about. The thought of cutting down what i already teach is worrying.
I am also concerned about the way in which you have combined the Use of Technology into "Create a media product that reflects knowledge of media forms". Quite often students 'fall over' during practical work (for whole number of reasons). The way the AS are currently set up they can still achieve some credits by showing that they can use Media technology and get something out of the whole experience. By removing technology as a separate AS this opportunity is denied to them.
Thanks for all the work you have been doing
Hi
ReplyDeleteI am also very concerned at the idea of splitting production phases into 2 ASs and agree with what Andrew and Sarla (and others)have written. In filmmaking I believe it would be messy and less workable than the current set up.
As per the person above, I also value keeping narrative and film language ASs separate but can adapt to a combo version.
Other changes look fine.
Thank you!
Anna Hickman
Nelson College for Girls
We live in interesting times with changes al around. I suppose that is what makes Media studies so rewarding and at times frustrating. After only 4 full years of Level 3 we need to change again!
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree with Ian about the level 3 aspects and the concept of refelction is something that I have been doing.
The refernce to FaEm puzzled me and maybe I am out of the loop, living in the sticks but my search showed that:
"
- there is no ITO representing screen production. A former ITO, Film and Electronic Media (FAEM), collapsed in 2000.
- the approximately 350 unit standards established by FAEM were deregistered by NZQA on 12 May 2006"
Could you clarify this.
Also 90602 is currently 2 credits not 3 as representd in the new matrix so the change would see a doubling of the value.
I am not sure about the de-registering of 23 Level 3 unit standards because of the apparent overlap with the achievement
Sorry 90604 is worth 2 credits - the preproduction standard. My mistake!
ReplyDeleteHi Philip,
ReplyDeletethe FaEM standards are currently being reviewed in order for the most relevant standards to be shifted into the Media Studies domain. This will allow teachers to place them alongside other standards, especially for production purposes, so students with particular technical skills can be rewarded.
Most of the unit standards that currently sit in the media studies domain are being de-registered primarily because of the enormous overlap with the AS - but also no resources are currently available for those standards, or will be developed AND they are now badly out of date.