nzhta’s weblog

J. Hasler

TIC NCEA History

[Summary of views of 7 History teachers]

 

GENERAL COMMENTS.

 

SUMMARY:

We

(i)                 Do NOT want NCEA to be fully internally assessed

(ii)               Do NOT want generic essays – at any level

 

Our belief is these can be avoided by completing ‘Tier 2’ and listing examinable ‘core’ of topics (contexts) for the standards e.g. a list of 4 possible, then the essay standards could have a specific question and be examined externally. Schools could opt to do one (or more) of these AND still have freedom to teach other topics/contexts of interest to them/their community.

 

This should force the Ministry to design an assessment system based on the curriculum (not the assessment driving the curriculum)

 

 

OTHER POINTS:

1.      We would be interest to know if what is happening in History with the new NCEA Matrix is similar to other subjects.

 

2.      We seem to be seeing the believed conspiracy theory that NZQA/MoE want NCEA to be all internally assessed coming through.

 

3.      The MoE seems to be bullying History teachers to either accept hated generic essay questions or move to standards being fully internally assessed.

 

4.      MoE arguments seem to be that as Curriculum ‘document’ (Tier 1 only) allows anybody to do anything – thus this is what has to happen. We could mitigate this by finishing a Tier 2 document (it must be precise and have concenus)

 

5.      The MoE should NOT be allowing the assessment to drive the curriculum – ‘we’ need to define Tier 2 asap to avoid this.

 

6.      Where is the proof that generic essay questions are educationally sound? Student’s rote learn answers (often prepared by their teachers) and regurgitate them in the exam. There have been problems at Level 2 with this – especially with AS2.6 (Identity essay) as it has had no real ‘hook’ or focus in the past few years to get students to argue and shape their knowledge – not just regurgitate. MoE could have used 4 generic theme based essays (like that of the old Combined Schools exam) to avoid one far to ‘generic’ question trying to cope with very different themes.

 

7.      The undercurrent seems to be that the MoE/NZQA is trying to do qualifications on the cheap – pass on ALL ‘costs’ to the school’s  and teachers: printing, setting, grading and marking – you can bet we will not be paid like the external markers/exam setters did. And what about moderation problems and multiple ‘resits’ – this could lead to the growth of ‘elitist schools’ – jobs dependent on what school you went to – not the results because the results can’t be trusted There are fears about the consistency and reliability of moderation now – will this get any better? Will we rely on a National Moderator? Will this be the same moderator who commented we were using the wrong version of AS3.2 when they were in fact quoting Version 1 NOT version 2!  Moving to fully internal assessed will mean more work for MU holders in term of compliance etc. at no extra pay not time allowance. It may mean more time on assessment and even less on ‘real’ history (i.e. via the ‘topics’ (contexts)

  

SPECIFIC COMMENTS FOLLOW THE MATRIX OPTIONS

  option-1

JBH COMMENTS

#1 [AS3.1/3.2 – in all options] Why join AS3.1 and AS3.2 together? Students will still need to know the (separates) skill of research and communicating ideas. Feedback to students on the research is needed to avoid double jeopardy in AS3.2. These are 2 different skills – so why not separate standards as they are at present (and as in Level 1 and 2 in these proposals)

 

#2. [AS3.3 – in all options] At present this is “analyse and evaluate” => allows for higher level skill of critical evaluation of reliability and usefulness – not clear if ‘analyse’ alone would do this. Should it be replaced with ‘examine’ as in AS2.2 which allows all 3 skill levels (identify, analyse and evaluate)?

 

#3. [Proposed AS3.4 - in all options] ‘Describe’ only => how will excellence be reached – “comprehensive detail” is probably NOT what we want. We must have evaluation  including explanation for differences (historiography) and hopefully with student taking their own stance – based on reasoned argument. This could be done externally – e.g. like Cambridge does by announcing a focus for the year and providing a hypothesis and range of sources as a starter. (Like Level 4 Schol).

 

#4. [AS3.5 - in all options] Many students found AS3.4 Decision essay more ‘approachable’. I assume situations will cover decisions anyway. How many choices will be offered?

 

#5. [No AS1.6 in options 1, 3 and 4] Disappointed there is no AS1.6 Identity of New Zealanders – I think more due to teachers finding it difficult to teach, not because it was not good history (after all it is about ourselves!). It hopefully will be covered via AS1.5 and a NZ ‘context’.

 

NOTES: [JBH Comments in BLUE]

·         This is the original matrix designed by NZHTA which was forwarded to the Ministry.

·         The strong recommendation of the Ministry Review Group assigned to respond to this, was that Achievement Standards 90213 (1.5), 90469 (2.5) and 90657 (3.5), the essay standards MUST be internally assessed. [WHY? Purely cost cutting by MoE not for benefit of our children’s education – Qualification on cheap – the Schools & teachers will have to ‘pay’]

·         The Achievement Standards must reflect the Achievement Objectives at each level, as schools programmes of study must from 2010 be derived from and reflect the New Zealand Curriculum 2007. [Tier 2 MUST designate a core of examined topics so we can have contextualised, non generic essay questions – this is NOT difficult to achieve at all levels]

·         The essays are decontextualised across all three levels

·         The sources are decontextualised across all three levels [NO – Level 1 I would prefer to have NZ context – perhaps a link to NZ identity, not necessarily linked to AS1.5 ‘context’ – should be stand alone (interpret and no own knowledge needed); Level 2 OK; Level 3 MUST contextualise e.g. to Tudor Stuart and NZ 19thC as at present – whatever the Tier 2 sets as ‘core’]

·         In this version, two standards are externally assessed at each Level

·         The wording ‘in an essay’ has been replaced with ‘in an extended piece of writing’ the reasoning for this is as follows, from the Ministry Review Group:

 

      [The] strand of standards AS90213, AS90469 and AS90657 can revert back to an external standard with “in an essay” tag removed. [The New Zealand History Teachers'] Association can consider using a term similar to “in a piece of extended writing” in the title.

 

·         During consultation, association must make it explicit to their stakeholders that the new versions of the standards in the AS90213 strand will be quite different and will have only one achievement criteria per grade. One of the current criteria, e.g. at Level 1, “Structure the historical information in a satisfactory essay format” will not be acceptable for this external standard in the new version. [If mean one criteria but within there are several e.g. content and structure but end result is ‘balance of evidence’ I have no problem with this – less pedantic]

·         The new standards will not be confined to a set list of narrow topics (see the principles paper pp.3-4). Association need to consider the impact of this on the changes to the AS90213 strand. [NZHTA must set a core of examinable ‘contexts, e.g. at level 4 most popular ‘context’ (topics) to have a specific question and externally assessed; then teacher/school/community must do at least one but can do others in the year of own choice; etc.]

 

·         The essays will have to be generic across all three levels under this matrix. We reach this conclusion from the wording in the Officials response ‘the new standards will not be confined to a list of narrow topics’. [NO see above]

·         At present though teachers feedback indicates that most people prefer this option, but with context specific questions – under this matrix specific essay questions are NOT an option, they will be generic essays such as those found at Level 2. [NO – see above]

option2

 

 

 

 

   JBH COMMENTS (only where they differ to other option 1)

 

#5 [AS1.6  only in option 2] Prefer to have Identity focus (at least explain why it was significant to New Zealanders) – otherwise this could just repeat AS1.5 – on the other hand it would force teachers/schools to do a NZ ‘context’.

 

#6 [AS2.6 – option 2 only] Some links to the AS3.4 above? But then loss of a link across matrix to this – is retained via AS1.6 row. Example(s) of what is meant by this would help our judgement – e.g. different ‘sides’ over 1981 Tour, or Vietnam War? etc. How will it be examined? – waste of time if generic (and thus rote learnt).

 

#7. [AS1.3 – option 2, 3 and 4] Why just primary – what is wrong with present format, surely primary only would be harder? Prefer Option 1.

 

#8 [AS2.3 – option 2, 3 and 4] Why limit source analysis to just this focus? i.e. limits range of questions/skills in source analysis compared to what we currently cover. Is this an attempt to introduce historiography? If so revise and make more like the suggested AS3.4 above. Prefer Option 1.

 

NOTES

 

·         This version incorporates the strong recommendation from the Ministry and assesses essays internally at each level. [NO – just cost cutting, not sound, etc.  (See general comment #?]

·         We have included a provision that the essay standards are to be internally administered but marked by an external panel [just cost cutting – we will not be paid for printing costs, supervision, mail costs, admin time, etc.]

·         This version allows for contextualized essays whereas option 1 will not – they will have to be decontextualised [how will this work if any teacher/school can do anything – how will markers make judgments – ‘school’ will have to provide “evidence statement” unless we have core ‘contexts’(topics)]

·         In Achievement Standard 90211 (1.3) the evidence may be taken from a broad range of sources, not necessarily on one ‘topic’

·         Achievement Standard 90467 (2.3) allows for a more specific study of sources from a single context/area [How is this any better than what we do at present? See my #8 comment]

·         Achievement Standards 90214 (1.6) and Achievement Standard 90470 (2.6) have been added to allow for two external assessments at levels 1 and 2, with the essay having become internal [see my #6 comments]

·         Only one Level 3 standard – AS90656 – is assessed externally [NO!]

 

Option 3:

option3

JBH COMMENTS

See previous comments #1 – #8

NOTES:

 

·         The essays are to be set and assessed internally and then moderated by the National Moderator on the same rotational basis as all the other internal standards [NO see previous comments about fears about moderation, growth of elitist schools, etc.; more workload for teachers and MU holder for compliance etc.]

·         This allows for contextualised essays [good – but make them EXTERNAL!]

·         Achievement Standards 90211 (1.3), 90467 (2.3 and 90656 (3.3) are the only externally assessed standards [NO]

·         Achievement Standards 90214 and 90470 (1.6 and 2.6) outlined in Option 2 are removed in this option [Put them back!]

option4

 

NOTES:

·         This option assesses all standards at all levels internally [No – see previous arguments]

·         Achievement Standards 90213, 90469 and 90657 (1.5, 2.5 and 3.5), the essays, are able to be contextualised [Contextualised AND EXTERNAL – see previous arguments]

·         Achievement Standards 90211, 90467 and 90656 (1.3, 2.3 and 3.3), the sources, are able to be contextualised [again this would be done at significant cost time, money etc. of MU holder, teachers, school AND fears about consistency achieved via moderation]

·         All standards would be moderated by the National Moderator [Yeah right! will this be the same moderated who comment I was using the wrong version of AS3.2 when they were in fact quoting Version 1 NOT version 2!]

Eight teachers of History at Burnside High School met to discuss the four options for the aligned standards and the consensus of the department was that Option 1 was the best one. There was considerable annoyance expressed at the “diktat” from the NZQA/MOE regarding their refusal to contemplate nominating specific contexts for external standards, especially essay writing. Our teachers are conscious of the general feeling against generic essay topics, but were realistic enough to accept that if this is what is eventually imposed then we must prepare our students as best we can. If this fait accompli occurs, it will be incumbent upon future examiners and markers not to set too high a level of expectation, or ruling any context out, especially in 2010-2011 while teachers and students are still getting used to the new system.

There was a strong feeling in favour of the retention of some form of external examination in order for the subject to have some credibility, as well as preparing senior students for the realities of tertiary study. There was an enquiry about whether other senior subjects were facing similar pressures from NZQA/MOE to increase the level of internal assessment and/or modify current external assessment expectations. There was a query about the rationale for combining 3.1 and 3.2 into a single standard. There was also a well-founded concern about the impact of proposed changes on teacher workload.

That being said, the Department understood how difficult it must be for the group reviewing history standards to try to meet the clear expectations of history teachers while faced with the intransigence of the NZQA/MOE reviewers. It seems that NZQA/MOE, when faced with reasoned arguments for teachers’ preferences, respond by simply restating their policy without ever justifying it. There was a clear hope that history teachers would be reasonable enough to accept that if what finally transpires is not what they wanted, the responsibility for this lies directly with NZQA/MOE and not the review group who are struggling manfully on our behalf.

I can live with any of the options but my preference is for option 3, although if there are no topics we should perhaps bite the bullet and go for option 4! It will be very difficult to set exams which teachers are satisfied with if the questions are all generic.
 
I have actually been quite happy with the generic essay questions at Level 2 but I do not see Year 11 students coping with generic essay questions.
 
I like the idea of reducing the number of standards at levels 1 and 2 to five, especially if more of them are going to be internally assessed.
 
Comments/questions:
1. Why are the resource questions at Level 1 limited to primary resources?
2. Why are the research descriptors limited to ‘an event’. (Levels 1, 2 and 3 – 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1/2) Currently my students do research focused on a personality (eg level 1 brochure, level 2 ‘This is your life”). Could it not be ‘an event/issue or personality’? An event is fairly restrictive.
3. In Option 2, would the 1.6 and 2.6 sections be generic questions? I can see it would be fairly straightforward at Level 1. Would level 2 be resource based, essay style or what? Actually, this applies to 3.4 also. Is it intended that the ‘debate’ be given to them as resources (similar to the current scholarship set-up) or would it be essays, generic, paragraphs? Any ideas yet? This would influence my choice of option.
 
When will we know what the final decision is? Thanks for all the work you are putting in on this. Rather a thankless task!
Ruth Holland
HOD Otaki College

I would prefer Option 1– I believe that students need to be able to write essays in external examination situations (they will have to at university). I would prefer set essay topics at all Levels, but I’m prepared to live with de-contextualized ones if it avoids essays as Internals.

The extension to five credits for most of the Standards is a progressive idea and a good one.

However, I do think it is unwise to merge 3.1 and 3.2 as AS 90654. Many students (especially those who pick up History at Level 3) are likely be deterred by having to conduct the research and communicate the ideas in one Standard for one less credit than is the case now, and of course it means extra teacher work etc. because it is still “effectively” two internals and 3.4 becomes an internal as well.

I am also concerned that if there are only two Externals at Level 3 that we will see them both extended in their scope and expectation of answers required by students in order to achieve with Excellence.

I am unhappy with the repetition of the phrase “of significance to New Zealanders” in so many of the Standards. Some teachers are already discussing how they will “tweak” the Yr 13 current English topic – it seems to me that if the phrase “of significance to New Zealanders” is included that we will not be able to teach any part of this topic at all (and many other pre-nineteenth century topics) as their events do not occur in NZ, or involve NZ, or influence NZ.

J. Devereux
Columba College