The Appendices give several different approaches to Learning Technology Competency, as published on the relevant authorities' websites (July 1999). The table below indicates some of the attributes of each for comparative purposes. The attributes chosen are arbitrary to some extent, and are not intended to represent necessary nor sufficient criteria for LTC. In addition, there are issues of interpretation and context that may not be evident until one sees how the TLTC schemes are implemented long-term. This is likely to be the case with, for example, the way in which the use of general educational theory is handled in relation to learning technology: this may have been assumed as an underlying component of any teaching process, and thus not referred to explicitly in the TLTC. Similarly, the recognition of competency may be restricted to a given State, rather than nationally or internationally, but may link directly with salary or other benefit.

As can be seen, there are similarities that may be important.

All include functional skills, although the relevance of some functional skills may provoke discussion amongst groups of teachers.

The necessity to acknowledge the existing skill levels of teachers is evident in all TLTC examples given. Given the variation in opportunities and interests within the teaching profession, it is highly likely that recognition of skill level will continue to be important. Conversely, approaches that require all teachers to attend compulsory courses (regardless of their current skill level) are unlikely to be effective.

The incorporation of pedagogical skills is, not surprisingly, evident in all the educationally-derived frameworks. External recognition is not common in the educational TLTC frameworks: this may be a reflection of the importance of local recognition processes (for example, Queenslands' industrial agreement) or perhaps that educational issues may be seen as more important than accreditation.

A recent study by Scheffler and Logan (1999) used the Delphi technique with a group of over 400 educators to rate the importance of a set of competency statements. They found that hardware and software training was rated relatively low in importance, while the skills and knowledge to make computers an integral part of the school environment had increased importance. Of the "general computer competencies", those rated most important included

• knowledge of how computers assisted individuals
• the ability to demonstrate keyboard skills,
• use of proper terminology to communicate about computers,
• proper care and use of computer systems,
• use of computers in decision making and
• use of computer reference materials.

It is important to recognise that given the rate of change of technology, and the escalation of system initiatives and other opportunities for teachers to gain access to technology, the relative importance of the components of TLTC is almost certain to change over the next few years. For this reason, TLTC frameworks and the structures that support them must be seen as subject to change.

ACCE position

• ACCE would not support a simple functional skills framework which does not contain pedagogical and educational competencies (such as the ICDL) as being sufficient for LTC. However, such a framework might form part of a suitable LTC.
• ACCE recommends that all LTC approaches include specific reference to underlying educational theory and practice, and the integration of learning technologies in the classroom.
• ACCE supports the idea of a LTC framework that extends beyond basic competency.
• ACCE supports the use of LTC as a formative tool, and suggests the framework be portrayed in such a form.
• ACCE supports LTC approaches that provide a recognised qualification that reflects professional achievement.
• ACCE supports the idea of specific LTCs for those teaching in specialist IT areas.
• ACCE recommends that provision be made for recognising the prior learning of teachers, and that the competence can be achieved through a range of means without necessarily attending formal courses.
• ACCE sees all TLTC models as dynamic and subject to regular review.