# data[].attributes.body
I think we all need to have a go at using our LS to assess, and share field 'tests'. However, when looking to the field for initial 'testing' we do need to recognize that some of these examples will reinforce misconceptions. Effective examples and misconceptions should guide our thinking, refinement and implementation.

# data[].attributes.body
Most LS divided in conceptual organisers, but not all.

Dispositions at either the beginning or end of a paragraph or LS

Capabilities embedded effectively

Most LA striving to include 'active' verbs

# data[].attributes.body
How much difference can we/teachers/learners tolerate across LAs? In primary? In secondary?

# data[].attributes.body
Clear structures are required for ease of teacher understanding of a LS, and we have developed a diversity of structures with varied clarity. It may not be appropriate to have the same structure for each LA, but a simply identified structure for each LA would be useful, with possibly a diagram of that structure on the landing page.

# data[].attributes.body
I think those LSs that integrate the dispositions and capabilities into sentences with the knowledge better express the learner experience. In a number of LS dispositional statements (bolded) also drew on capabilities and 'action' verbs - this also described the learner experience effectively. Those that focussed mainly on content became more difficult to read and understand, and tended to distance the learner from the learning.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a diversity of structures and written expression in the ways the LS are written. It was impressive to hear each CM explain the decisions they had made and the language they had chosen. Everything I heard was authentic and valid, however, I wonder how much tolerance of difference is OK? Structures that were difficult to explain are more likely to confuse users, I think this is where we might want to consider, not necessarily a generic structure ( like the one ACV9 is developed in) but look at ways to make the structure of all LS simpler, easier to articulate and consistent from R to 10 in any 1 LA.

# data[].attributes.body
The order of paragraphs in the LS may be considered or sequential for a reason, but we shouldn't get too hung up on order. Educators are not going to read the first 2 paragraphs only (with a focus on say pedagogy and dispositions) and ensure these are a focus, and give scant regard to the third content statement. The LS is all important - representation in the LS matters, not so much order.

# data[].attributes.body
Content should be represented in the LS, not transcribed from the content descriptors.

# data[].attributes.body
Learning Standards should be brief, and not repeat other parts of the model. We must assume that teachers will use the LS and the whole Essential Learnings in considering learning design. Brief and encompassing - not repetitive.

# data[].attributes.body
We need a programme of LS classroom testing and review!

# data[].attributes.body
It is clear that different learning areas need different Learning Standards. There is a lot of difference between LAs, and the connection/commonality/consistency is in the structure of Knowledge-Capabilities-Dispositions. Therefore it is appropriate that they look different for different LAs.

# data[].attributes.body
One of my questions is around how best we might manage misconceptions regarding the new curriculum in the field during this period of culture change.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the standards that I read today will significantly support teacher understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Test

# data[].attributes.body
What questions do you have?

# data[].attributes.body
What patterns can you see?

# data[].attributes.body
What is the teacher's experience?

# data[].attributes.body
What is the learner’s experience?

# data[].attributes.body
What do you notice? What do you wonder?