I have been intrigued by this whole development whereby the four suggested matrices are determining what and how we deliver our History curriculum.
I was encouraged by the very healthy discussion that was occurring re Tier 2 because many teachers such as Graeme Ball were making a huge contribution to that debate. He was attempting, along with others, to build a set of topics that were consistent with the Achievement Objectives without considering any assessment tools. But the matrices have landed and changed that whole process.
So let us deal with the matrices. I would like to consider the whole decontextualised/contextualised argument first and then tie them into the framework of exams, internal assessment or the suggested compromise offered by Matrix Option 2.
The skills at level 1 and 2 are de-contextualised but generally tied to a particular theme or event that no-one has studied. Many history teachers did not like that but have learned to live with the compromise. Of course they are not really de-contextualised. They are historical resources around a context that is not known beforehand. I would rather see the approach used for all levels as is used at Level 3 for resources, where there is a nominated topic (or two) for resource interpretation that would require students to link the resource into their own knowledge. I see this as huge potential to deal with events of significance to New Zealanders at all three levels.
The courses at all levels can be signalled through Assessment Specifications that would run for a period of years with overlaps when new topics are introduced. This seems to work quite successfully with the Shakespeare topics in level 3 English.
The essays at level 2 are more problematic and we need to exercise extreme caution if we are to de-contextualise to give ‘local choice’ of topics to be taught.
AS 2.5 and AS2.6 are currently de-contextualised in a different way from the resource-based standards at Level 1 and 2 because the students are going into the exam with prepared contexts drawn from the topics that they have studied. It is interesting to note that in unpacking AS2.5 and AS2.6 in workshops in 2006, we drew a number of conclusions about ways to prepare the students for these essay questions:
1. The students and teachers have to supplement the textbooks with further research and reading about the ‘characteristics of forces and movements’ and the ‘creation and development of group and individual identity’ The textbooks do not deal with those aspects in anywhere near the detail needed to answer according to the standard. So there is a resourcing issue. One can argue that in an internet-based world we can get our resources from the net. But for the time being I am rejecting that constructivist; Wikipedian approach.
2. Some students prepare answers for topics that markers are not qualified to assess. With 30 plus topics available at Level 2 (although in reality about 8 to 10.) teachers have chosen about three topics for their course at Level 2. If a teacher has chosen a less popular topic, it is possible for a student to answer their essay using what, to many markers are obscure topics. We have documented evidence that shows a student’s essay on the American Revolution gained an Excellence from very poor History. Huge generalisations unsupported by evidence, errors of fact and, under informed scrutiny, barely reaching achieved. If we are allowing all course to be de-contextualised we run the risk of these same gross distortions of History. By de-contextualising you are only encouraging the proliferation of weak and inaccurate History.
3 But there is more. The students then focus on one or two topics for the two essay questions in the exam. Worse, they are able to focus on one section of the topic for the exam and have a multi-fit, prepared answer that can cope with whatever generic question is flung at them. The Diem Regime in Vietnam is a good example of that. Students can write an extremely high quality essay for AS2.6 by just using the period 1954 to 1963 in Vietnam. This sub-topic ticks all the boxes and with a little bit of research, students can use that narrow context for their preparation. Of course the new curriculum will require them to consider the significance to New Zealand. That is not a problem for this topic. But this approach is a problem for History because it is training seals to perform on cue. It is not good History. And it is borne out of a system that had the largest selection of topics available to choose from of all three levels. If we de-contextualise to allow local choice we aggravate that problem.
These approaches were pragmatic responses by teachers to a situation that existed and had to be worked through.
It is clear that I favour the retention of external assessment and would support the option that provides more externals. I do not like the phrase ‘ extended piece of writing’ although I can live with it because an essay can be signaled through the assessment specifications.
I will be blunt in my reasons for cynicism with increased ratios of internal assessment. About ten years ago a group of us were contracted to audit the Internal Assessment practices of 100 secondary schools across New Zealand under the old Bursary prescription. The variations in practice were huge with 80% being non-compliant in some way or other. Some were downright criminal in their neglect of the spirit and the letter of the requirements.
Since then I have seen the experiences of teachers in Auckland and Northland grappling with internal assessment under NCEA. The difficulty is not so much the equity of judgements, but more the equity of the assessment conditions. There are huge variations with what is allowed for feedback (and feed forward) before the due date and fix-up times after the assignment is due, let alone what constitutes an historical idea. Full-time moderators or Full-time markers for all standards are not going to change that because they cannot control what happens in the schools. In some cases, schools cheat – that is the worst-case scenario. The real difficulty is not with those cheating schools – fortunately, because they will be found out in time – the real difficulty is with variations in practice that under-mine the standard. The external assessment is at least transparent and honest and with some tweaking can offer an assessment regime that addresses the issues I mention above. I know that one can criticise the NCEA external assessment as well, but a large number of those criticisms could be labelled at the old system as well. It was just not as transparent. I think that there is a solution.
If we support Matrix 1 with de-contextualised standards, the contexts can be provided through the assessment specifications. I would like a longer lead-in for these (than December of the year prior) but there would be nominated topics that an examiner can signal to be available for assessment for the next 3 to 5 years. Every year new topics could be added or replaced. But all topics would have a shelf life of five years minimum. This would address the resourcing issue by providing some certainty for schools in purchasing sets of texts – a real issue in a country like New Zealand. It would allow for local curriculums (for internals only) and it would allow questions to be asked by examiners for the Resource questions and the Essay questions (I am going to keep using the term ‘essay’) that meet the ‘of significance to New Zealand’ part of the Achievement Objective. I am not happy about Resources at Level 1 being only Primary (Where did that come from?) however I can see scope for an examiner to use a New Zealand context for the resource interpretation question.
I would expect the standard to have a reference to contextual knowledge as well – again signalled through the assessment specifications. The CIE History exam signals which topic will be available for resource interpretation in any given year. While I do not support the whole CIE initiative, I can see that schools will increasingly head towards it if we don’t get this right.
In summary:
1. I support all resource interpretations at level 1 and 2 being drawn from a New Zealand context with the proviso that the student’s answer with their own knowledge. Nominated contexts through assessment specifications published in Term 2 of the year prior and with a longer shelf life.
2. I support Matrix 1 with some modification of the Achievement Standards titles.
3. I support the retention of external assessment.
4. I support topics/contexts being signalled through earlier publication of assessment specifications.
5. I support the retention of the term ‘essay’
6. I am not in favour of Internal Assessment as proposed by Matrix 4.
7. I am concerned that markers cannot mark accurately for contexts that are local, hence very suspicious of the internal administration and externally marked suggestion
8. I am concerned about resourcing in a country like New Zealand if we de-contextualise.
John Pipe
Mt Albert Grammar School
