The Mark of e-Maturity (say what?!!)
Those who manage to keep up with the ebb and flow of excruciating terminology and policy will know that the Self Review Framework (which from a branding point of view doesn't really say whats in the tin!) is based on a concept called e-maturity, itself a derivative of a 'concept to maturity model' of school improvement through ICT. Well, Naace were commissioned by Becta to undertake research earlier this year into the key characteristics and the development of e-maturity in the school workforce.
The report has been (secretly?) published on the Naace web site. It can be found HERE. Some of the report conclusions (below) are obvious:
- No widespread recognition of the term e-maturity amongst teachers (surprised? probably not)
- Half those who completed the quiz said it was a meaningful concept (see above ... they weren't teachers then?)
- Those professionals involved in the research did not fully represnt the schools workforce (ah, see both of the above)
- Vision, leadership and resources are patchy.
- SLICT hardly mentioned as a motivator for developing personal or institutional e-maturity (not my experience).
- Increasing numbers of staff are enthusiastic about developing their own e-maturity (self motivated?).
- Most teachers and advisors developed their e-maturity in an ad hoc way, receiving little direct recognition for their efforts, and staff and schools would find it helpful if some such form of recognition existed.
Their recommendations?
- Consult widely on the definition (why? the definition is better than anyone else has come up with for a 21st century teacher, its the phrase e-maturity thats wrong).
- Ensure a single definition is appropriate. (i.e. would it be different for a teaching assistant? ... school technician? probably!).
- Consider whether there is a clear, generic progression in developing e-maturity (the holy grail of staff development?).
- Promote the concept of e-maturity much more widely or find an alternative terminology that is meangful to staff in schools.
- Develop specific routes for professionals to increase their e-maturity (aha!!, now we're getting somewhere!).
- Create a recognition scheme for professional use of ICT in the school environment that is light touch, has credibility with employers and embodies the key elements of e-maturity described (Wow, let me know when they crack this one!).
The authors have come up with a very useful definition of e-maturity (The
actual definition is for ... "a description of workforce e-maturity"), and in my opinion it really is excellent ... drop the e-maturity blurb and it makes
a lot of sense! It presents a bold and concise statement of the skills, motivation and approach required to be an e-confident teacher, and an e-confident school only exists as long as it has e-confident teachers.
My own opinion is that we need to think carefully before we create fancy definitions and labels ... contrast 'Self Review Framework' with 'ICT Mark'. In branding terms the latter wins hands-down and is what it says. The fact that they are linked by process makes it the more confusing. The report asks whether 'e-maturity' is recognised as a descriptor and concludes it isn't, ... Why not come up with something that really describes what it is (teacher e-confidence? ... too simple really isn't it).