There are a vast number of frameworks for thinking about and describing computer use in education. In order to be able to evaluate them - and decide upon which ones are the most useful (in certain contexts) we need to have some criteria against which to judge them.

I have set out a number of 'key issues', which I think are important. These form the basis for some criteria that I would suggest we could (or indeed should) use in evaluating the usefullness of frameworks for thinking about and describing computer use in education.

Criteria 1: Does the framework address ICT use in practice?
(rather than focussing on the technology in isolation from its actual use)
The most important issue seems to me to be that we need to focus on the educational practice surrounding computer use - rather than on the hardware or software itself. This reflects the 'fact' that hardware and software do not determine the way in which they are used. Software and other technologies have what Laurillard et al (1999) describe as affordances, that is they lend themselves to being used in certain ways. However, that does not preclude them from being used in other ways, which were not intended or anticipated by their designers. Thus any framework that focuses solely on the software and ignores the way in which the software is used in practice is flawed.

Criteria 2: How easy is it to apply the framework?
It seems self-evident that for a framework to be of value people need to be able to apply it.

Criteria 3: To what extent can the framework be applicable irrespective of the educational stance of the teacher?
It is clear that the broader the scope of a framework in terms of its applicability, the more useful it will be as a tool for thinking about and/or comparing practice across contexts. One dimension which could limit the scope of a framework is the extent to which it has implicit (or explict) within it certain views about what constitutes 'good practice'. The greater the degree to which a framework is based on pre-conditions about what constitues good practice then the greater the liklihood that certain facets of educational practice per se will be ommitted from that framework and hence the less broad its applicability across contexts. ie Frameworks that have implicit/explicit models of 'good practice' within them are only likely to work well in contexts where those views are shared.

This is an issue of value judgements. Inevitably any framework makes judgements (which are value laden) about what aspects to focus upon (ie what to include and what to exclude). That is what gives them organising power. However, that is qualitatively different from making judgements about what constitutes high or low quality.

Eg User control - if you start from a perception of

Criteria 4: To what extent does the framework hold good for all types of software and computer use?
some text

Criteria 5: To what extent does the framework provide a rich picture of computer use?
some text

Criteria 6: To what extent does the framework enable the comparison of computer use across contexts?
how to describe educational practice surrounding computer use in order to be able to make comparisons of such practice between different contexts. This might include comparing the practice within one class over time or practice in two or more different classrooms.

Criteria 7: What level does the framework operate at?
The issue of the level at which a framework can operate is crucial. Some frameworks can work across a number of levels.

Criteria 8: What is the shelf life of the framework?
Technology changes very rapidly, which may have implications for the potential shelf-life of a framework. This is particularly true where frameworks are focused on the technology rather than on the practices that is supports.

Home Frameworks Criteria

Investment Literature Impact Reasons Solution Limitations The CPF Discussion

This page is maintained by Peter Twining (PeterT@meD8.info)
Last updated 8th January 2002