nzhta’s weblog

I have several concerns that I feel compelled to voice in this forum:

Non-prescribed topics

There is already a broad range of topics available that are attractive to student interest.  All of these topics have significance to New Zealanders in either a domestic or international context.  To open the range further, provided that they meet the AOs and have significance to New Zealanders, invites the teaching of facile and unsubstantial material.  Furthermore, it is problematic for external markers who, as it is, must hold a considerable level of content knowledge and detail.

Significance to New Zealanders

Before any requirement to include significance to New Zealanders is put in place, it must be clarified that this need only be a link to connect the students to the relevance of the topic to New Zealanders.  It must not be at the centre of the teaching or assessment of the topic.  We live in an increasingly globalised world, in which New Zealand is a player, not the centrepiece.  Many of the topics that we teach are significant events in history that have shaped and continue to shape the world order and international relations.  While in the past our history lessons have shamefully excluded New Zealand content, we must not overcompensate by skewing the view of ourselves.

Essays/Extended Writing

The essay writing skills attained in the study of history at secondary school are invaluable for future academic and professional work.  Extended text is practised in several subjects and does not demand the academic rigour needed for analytical exposition.

Internal/External assessment and workload

I favour the status quo of a balance of internal and external assessments.  It is difficult enough for student to learn to manage their time and their workload.  While some students may be attracted the idea of fewer exams, they may then find themselves in difficulty, overloaded with internal assessments.

The workload for teachers would obviously be greater and the pressure on the whole school assessment calendar unmanageable.

The idea of externally marking internal assessments would do little to alleviate this workload and create extreme difficulties in connecting with students and giving them profitable feedback on their effort and progress.

Libby Giles

Auckland Girls’ Grammar School

HISTORY MATRIX OPTION ONE
All exam questions would be generic – decontextualised. But only 2 standards are examined externally at every level. Note that at Level 3 the Decision essay has been replaced by a Historical Debate essay. Students do find the decision essay more accessible. The 1.5 essay could become a potential nightmare of a huge range of topics presented for exam answers.
Acceptance of this standard would be more work as more is assessed internally.  My assessment, based upon considerable evidence, is that generic assessments are not regarded fondly by most teachers. That may be understating the emotion! The present Level 2 experience has not been a happy one! 

HISTORY MATRIX TWO
The key point about this Matrix is that essays are internally administered but marked externally at every level. Is this more of a burden on teachers in terms of administration??? This Matrix aims to make you feel happier by adding a contextualised essay standard at every level.  There are still only two externally examined standards. But this matrix allows you to retain more present topics you teach as long as at Level 1-2 students are describing events of significance to New Zealanders. Also can we expect Year 11 students to cope with only primary sources for 1.3 and Level 2 students to grasp different interpretations in historical resources in 2.3? 

HISTORY MATRIX THREE
NO CONTEXT IS PROVIDED for this one in terms of its provenance!!! There is only one externally assessed standard at every level. My sense is that this involves a lot more work for teachers. 

HISTORY MATRIX FOUR
Where on earth did this one come from?? The whole kit and caboodle are internal. A massive workload!!  I have the sense that 3 and 4 have been included to guide you back gently to Matrix 2, after coping with that icy clutch at your heart.My thanks to Paul Wulff and his group of teachers in Timaru who initially guided me through the matrix thicket – jungle. But these comments are my own. To my mind all four Matrixes have unpalatable aspects.  Some clearly more so than others!!! Overall, more responsibility, which really means work, is handed back (more fashionable word-’devolved’) to classroom teachers and HODs whichever Matrix is chosen!  
Best wishes
Jim

We have discussed the History matrix and make the following comments.

We prefer in ranking order, with reservations outlined below, Option TWO and ONE.

The response from the ChCh BHS History Department is largely endorsed by us.

We would like to add to/ highlight the following:

1.       More internally assessed Standards appear to be signalled as a given. Why? The assumption appears to be that external assessment equals decontextualised assessment (If this is incorrect, we would like to hear why). This assumption is not true. The curriculum AOs at each level do not necessitate decontextualised external essays. The idea offered by ChCh Boys’ High History Dept addresses this – that is for a range of agreed external contextualised questions (derived from agreed taught content), with an additional single decontextualised option for those schools who do not opt for the agreed (majority) topics.

2.       The “of significance to New Zealanders” definition offered by NZHTA will need to be authorised officially before any decisions about content can be made. But the following concerns will need to be addressed: How is this aspect achieved? Is it intended that all student assessment explicitly demonstrates links to this? This would be easily achieved for “events occurring in NZ”, and for “global events involving NZ”, but could be difficult for “global events influencing NZ”. Which “events influencing NZ” would not be accepted by a marker? How much demonstration by students would be required for this?

3.       The clarification for point two above could be addressed with effective Explanatory Notes – but we need to see these to judge the Standards. All of the listed Achievement Standards critically depend on thorough and clear Explanatory Notes. Much work will be needed to ensure ENs assist teachers and students. Without these, it is difficult to judge any of the assessment options given.

4.       A single external standard for any level is indeed farcical. It should be accompanied by at least one other external standard to ensure examinations are meaningful for students, for assessment consistency across schools and to assist with preparation for students’ future study.

5.       If more internal assessment is indeed a “given”, then the timing of assessment and moderation will be radically affected. How can so much assessment, that all require internal and then external moderation be completed without watering down content? And, surely the assessment conditions can not be consistent across all schools – eg. Inconsistent or unfair prior assistance for an internal assessment. The workload for teachers will increase dramatically (including the writing/adapting of new assessments at each level).

6.       AS 90654 (3.1 and 3.2) need not and should not be combined into a super standard.

History Dept

Nelson College