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

Kia Ora colleagues

My conclusions first:

Given the following:

(i) The lack of prescribed choices (and currently the choice is already vast for internals and wide for Externals) and

(ii) The need for one or more external exam (for students’ benefit and NCEA credibility)

It follows that:

a) De-contextualised sources will have to go ahead for all 3 Levels – unless we switch to foreign curricula or assess internally.

b) Essay(s) will have to be generic across the board too … unless we switch to foreign curricula or assess internally (and either mark internally or have NZQA mark it).

c) If we have neither essays nor sources examined externally – then whatever else is done (some kind of short answer response paper for instance) in an external will still have to be de-contextualised.

§   Therefore, if they were set, generic essays/other questions in the exams will have to be much more accessible to students than the questions currently set. It will still be possible to tell A, from M, from E even with simpler questions and retaining writing frames. We could even consider using the exact same stems every time. Failing this we ought to be informed of the generic question before hand so we can decipher it for our students!

§   If de-contextualised sources are set as exams we should have a rough idea of the topic content so we can teach it – if we choose!

§   If we had 2 essays for Levels 2 and 3 by re-instating Identity and Decision as 6^th AS option they would be perfect candidates for externals. Then do trickier Force and Situation for internals (marked externally would be my preference).

§   Are perspectives and interpretations interchangeable concepts that can apply to contemporary and modern points of view? Or do perspectives apply to contemporary PoV and interpretations apply to matters of historiography? Either way, at what levels do we teach and assess contemporary perspectives and historiography?

More detailed thoughts on NZHTA Matrices options:

Option 1

(1)   Inquiry/communication

§   Have no big issue with selecting historical events for the assessments because it tallies with the (cursory) NC AO’s. However, history is not only about historical events and it is restrictive.

§   (Would prefer 3.1 and 3.2 to be split, rather than lumped. You do not have to do 3.1 to get to 3.2 and I like the option of doing 2 different topics.

§   Can we do an event essay as part of the 1.2, 2.2, 3,2?

(2) Sources.

§   Don’t mind how the 1.3 AS read (interpret; examine; analyse is fine – although I think it’s about analysis across the levels but at different stages of ‘student readiness’/current ability).

§   I detest de-contextualised sources – this is not how professional historians operate, nor how novices should be expected to operate. In-depth prior knowledge is important when analysing source material.

§   The subjects chosen for the sources exam are often a million miles from the experience of my South Auckland students – Princess Diana, the American Civil War etc has little relevance for them without any teaching and learning around the topics. Isn’t the new NC about making things more relevant?! There is an issue of equity here.

·          If we can’t have contextualised sources let’s tell teachers/kids what topic to expect for the year

(3) Perspectives/interpretations.

§   Question #1: for 1.4 and 2.4 are the perspectives contemporary and/or historian’s interpretations? I presume they are contemporary perspectives.

§   Internal is a good idea for empathetic writing that requires more than analytical writing.

§   Question #2: are we using perspectives and interpretations as interchangeable terms, to be pre-fixed with ‘contemporary’ or ‘modern historians’’?

§   I think ‘describe a debate among historians’ (3.4) is a good idea at L3 – short answer responses or extended writing though?

§   At least internal assessment will avoid generic essay questions.

§   Presumably perspectives/interpretations will be covered in sources paper too.

 (6) Extended writing/essays.

§   External de-contextualised essays (or extended writing) – hard enough for my students when they are specific questions. Add the generic format and you add a further level of difficulty. Especially as the questions are so long winded and unclear – written by committee perhaps?

§   Does the MoE consider essays as non-essential when they insist on ‘extended writing’ in the language of the AS?

§   Shame to drop the Identity essay as easier to interpret (I think!) than generic force question. Could the Identity essay it become 2.6?

§   Decision essay also easier than situation. Could we make 3.6 as the decision essay?

§   Can we do a event essay as part of the 1.2, 2.2 or 3.2?

Option 2

(1)   Sources.

§   Don’t like the phrasing/implications. Better to have primary and secondary for level 1? Level 2 sources – more than interpretations (contemp or modern) to study. Level 3 is fine.

§   Again, de-contextualised sources suck. Of course, they might be inevitable under the impending regime. I prefer my Unit Standard ones! Will US survive?

(2) 1.6/2.6

§   1.6 – superfluous? Format? Still generic/de-contextualised. Worried there aren’t enough exams? If so, why not a 3.6 for L3?

§   2.6 – I’d rather have a generic L2 identity essay as an external.The 2.6 option sounds like it could be better done at 2.3 or 2.4.

§   Perhaps have one generic essay in the exam and 1 internal marked externally?

(3) Essays. Internal setting and external marking is a great compromise! Contextualised is best.

Option 3

Prefer Option 2 as stated. External marking please for (1) relieving workload (2) 100% real public scrutiny.

Option 4

(1)   We need one or 2 exam papers for student study skills/Uni futures and future of NCEA.

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

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 have to admit that on a first skim viewing I was extremely worried about the Ministries apparent desire to have generic questions, when so far, at level two, they have caused numerous issues and teachers have consistently complained that they have not been handled well. That combined with the potential increased workload due to the increased number of internals had me questioning why the Ministry and teachers were wanting such incredibly different things and neither appears to be reaching a compromise.

 On closer reading and more rational thinking, my concerns have eased somewhat, but I think to truly get to grips with the implications of each option – teachers need the explanatory notes. Without them, my interpretation of the standards and my desire to avoid generic questions, combined with the assumption that the Ministry will introduce all the achievement standards (across all three levels) at once, pushes me towards option three.

 I do have a couple of queries that I would like to be put to the ministry however:

 a) Why do the Ministry appear to want to increase the number of internal assessments, moving away from exam situations – therefore widening the gap between school assessment and university assessment? If students complete a 100% internal course for 3 years as per option 4, they will struggle significantly when they have to face exams at university level.

 b) Without the ‘broad survey’, how will Scholarship exist? Is this why 3.4 now includes historical debate to compensate?

c) What is the pre-occupation with ‘events’ as opposed to themes or personalities? The word “event” appears in research (1.1), communication (1.2) and perspectives (1.4) standards and also in 1.6/2.6 in the option two matrix. I would like to see a definition of ‘event’…for example how small/large can an ‘event’ be – is World War Two an event, or a series of events for example?

d) If we did end up with an entirely (or even mostly) internally assessed course, will teachers be compensated for the additional hours spent creating, marking and moderating assessments which they are currently eligible to be paid for (for some standards) as markers for NZQA.

e) Are other subjects increasing the numbers of internals – if they aren’t, will this devalue history as a subject in already critical parents eyes? If they are increasing their internals, will this mean that students are expected to stay in class for the whole of term 4 rather go on study leave? And also, if they have no externals, what do we teach in this time as it will be too late to do anything significant based on the current moderation set-up.

I suspect that since matrix two is a bit of a red herring. It has1.1, 1.2 and 1.6 being so similar (ie wanting an event with significance to NZ) many over burdened teachers will double or in some cases triple dip, using the same content to achieve 12 credits for their students. I doubt that this will broaden students knowledge of history, or in fact show New Zealand in a ‘wider global context’ as hoped but instead limit it.

Therefore, at this point, I am not yet appeased…and feel many other teachers may be in a similar situation. It is really important that the Ministry doesn’t assume teachers silence means that they are in agreement with what is occurring, it may simply mean that teachers are so busy they haven’t got time to get properly involved in the debate. If that is the case, should we really be increasing the workload further by brining in all these topic/standard changes all at once in 2010? I’d like to think the Ministry has some vague idea of current teacher workload, but doubt it.

Aimee Breddy, St Cuthberts College.

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

Already one can detect considerable unease being expresed about where we are
heading.
The concerns as we see them at TGC are:

* decontextualised teaching and learning is not good educational
practice, yet it would appear the Ministry is reluctant to allow 
specified contexts(topics) for external examination.  This then may mean
we can only avoid decontextualised  teaching and learning if there is
school-based internal assessment, directly related to the contexts
taught.  What a predicament we have got ourselves in!

* any notion of having an external exam of less than 2 hrs will probably
be treated with some indifference by numerous students, not something
that would prove to be positive for the subject

* everything seems to have to be discussed within the parameters of some
rather narrow AO’s devised in the curriculum statement- it  appears
there was an  interest group shaping the curriculum statement who have
determined that  5 of the 6 AO’s for Levels 6, 7, and 8 have to be “of
significance to New Zealanders’ .  This is going to result in some
rather limiting outcomes, unless this is challenged.

Goodness knows where all this is going to take the study of History in
the senior secondary school, but the framework does seem flawed, -yet we
have the uneasy feeling that the horse has probably bolted!

We do have some practical questions from the viewpoint of those students
who opt for History as a subject  because they like and are excited
about topics/contexts we currently teach. eg In Year11 topics such as
Origins of WW2, and Black Civil Rights, USA.
It is stated that while “this does not preclude existing topics being
taught, they must be tweaked to fit the AO’s”, which therefore means in
terms of  “significance to New Zealanders”.  How is it envisaged such
‘tweaking’ of these topics would be done??

Murray Armstrong
HOD Social Sciences
Tauranga Girls’ College

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