Come now Selwyn D (2008), don't be too hasty!

Just read the Selwyn* article and have mixed feelings about the views therein. He argues that the only real good to come out of Digital Horizons was mediocre ICT Cluster PD and the development of Cyber-Safety Programmes (p. 33). Whilst I agree that in order to really give e-learning a kickstart we need more radical policy making from central government which "rethinks the structures of schooling (curriculum, assessment as well as structures of time, space and power)" (p. 33), I do feel that Selwyn is being a little pessimistic about things on the ground. The article does briefly mention infrastructure improvements such as wider broadband internet access (Probe Project) and the TELA scheme but, I feel, does not give them enough kudos. The loftiest e-learning goals of any policy maker would not be able to come to fruition without adequate infrastructure and, given the rapidly changing nature of software, operating systems and hardware, I feel it's a little cynical to slam the goals of policy so hard when the goalposts are continually moving.

In applying Selwyn's analysis to the later "E-learning Action Plan" I can see some of the economic discourse coming through in the text. There is still reference to the knowledge economy and to how learners will benefit society and the economy in the future if they have a high level of ICT literacy.

However, there is a distinct flavour of collaboration and connectivity in this later policy. I believe this is due to the influence of the new NZ curriculum and, more specifically, the key competencies therein. The "Elearning action plan" seems to hold these key competencies (especially Participating and Contributing, and Communication) at the core of what it is saying. I think for my assignment I want to explore the key competencies, particularly those two, in greater depth to see how they can drive teachers' ICT use in the right direction.

Finally, I want to say that I feel a policy document like the eLearning Action Plan cannot and should not be critiqued in isolation. It really should be an umbrella document under which a whole host of consequential actions take place (including infrastructure development, rolling out of PD, and development of Professional Learning Communities to foster better "smart" ICT use in the classroom). The activities which arise as a result of the policy are what should be better critiqued and subsequently developed and although Selwyn does this when he reads "with" the document, in my view his analysis was too narrow in places.

*Selwyn, D. (2008). Business as usual? Exploring the continuing (in)significance of e-learning policy drives. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 20(3), 22-34