nzhta’s weblog

History Curriculum Concerns and Suggestions

 

 

I am worried by what I see emerging from this process because I can’t see it delivering what students ought to be able to get from this subject or what the Ministry seems to want. The changes are potentially revolutionary but their direction and outcomes are not  clear.  I would like to help, however, and not become part of the problem.

 

So far, in what is supposed to be a consultation we have  been given  no substantial alternatives to discuss – it is all decontextualisation and resultant generic questions – these are really the two major  issues which determine all else. They are points where consultation is most needed.  Allowing for “consultation” after  one of the present matrices is accepted will in fact leave very little to consult or discuss. We have been shown no model allowing for prescribed units or modernized, New Zealand  content.

 

1. Like many teachers I am worried that the present curriculum is exam and assessment driven, becoming more narrow in its topic coverage  leading to a decrease in NZ content, and  in the worst cases a denigration of NZ History as a subject. Quite a few teachers seem to have lost the content knowledge to revive it and  new teachers seem to be steered away from it. Previous  curriculae with prescriptions  had prevented and limited this trend by prescribing the numbers of topics to be studied and prescribing NZ content to be used in them at level 1 (5^th Form) and not allowing double dipping on external and internal studies at level 3. The present matrices seem to be assessment driven as well with little care for “what” is taught.

 

2. The present situation arose through nobody’s choice or policy but because we have been focused so much on assessment over the past 20 years that what was taught has in effect become less important than fitting current content to the achievement fashion of the day. This  does not fit with Government policy of promoting the knowledge economy. The fewer topics taught, the easier it is to fit it to the standards and get the  “good” marks. Teachers have effectively been put under pressure  to “do better by doing less” . This is an absurd situation which nobody planned and certainly nobody  takes responsibility for. This situation is the basic reason behind why so many topics have not changed since the 1980s.

 

3. I worry that the new matrices  with total decontextualisation provide no help or remedy for this and in fact if teachers are faced with another set of  assessment rules, even though they are far better,  then the content will stay the same as they simply adapt it to the new standards. With no prescribed content we will be powerless to say what NZ kids should be taught. Most will probably stay with the same old stuff though a few wackos will get the chance deify Bishop Bryan. I can’t imagine anyone in the Ministry being prepared to justify this to the Minister or the public.

 

4. The attempts to get New Zealand content back into the classroom by making the unspecifiable  decontextualised topics “relevant to NZ” is so easy to apply with minimal compliance that without a lot of goodwill and assistance it is very likely to be  ineffective in many schools. With the decontextualisation  rule applied consistently no specific NZ content could in fact be “required” in any topic. People will focus on what they know will get good results and at the moment that doesn’t help NZ studies.

 

5.  The balance between internal and external assessment needs  more thought. While increasing internal assessment, as all the matrices seem to encourage, will appeal to Treasury, we are supposed to be focusing on the students, not money. More internal assessment increases teacher workload ( again making it less likely content will be updated) but more importantly it does not carry the public confidence that external assessment does.

 

I am particularly concerned about the withdrawal of the  level playing field provided by prescribed content units that are externally assessed. Students from disadvantaged schools of low social prestige can prove their attainment in external exams in a way the community accepts. They are a life line and an escape route.  If totally decontextualised internal assessment is adopted then our certificates will cease in fact to be national certificates but be “school certificates” only as good as the reputation of the school they come from.  In the competitive system of “tomorrow’s schools”  there have to be winners and losers and pity help the poor kids at the “loser” schools. The kids from a school in Otara will have no objective way of showing they can do as well as  the kids from Christ’s College.

 

This is socially, morally and politically unacceptable and any decision risking this needs to be shown first to the parents and public before we hastily jump into it.  

 

While I personally don’t like emphasis on exams I feel, for the  kids sake, I have to take it on the jaw for there is so far no other way which provides equitable assessment which the public trusts and which we can afford. Students would be deprived of this advantage if we do not keep some external assessment. I suggest 3, externally assessed units per level would maintain public confidence.

 

Equity between schools in external assessment can only be assured through prescribed topics so all are jumping over the same hurdle. It also enables competent assessment. Experience to date points to specific questions being more suitable at levels 1 and 3 rather than generic. There is debate over the success of generic questions at level 2. 

 

The present  plans seem to have avoided this whole issue, laying down total decontextualisation, which can only be served by generic questions at all levels of external assessment.  Far more  internal assessment seems to be called for but without a prior commitment to a whole new system of moderation by Government (we have only one History moderator in NZ) this is launching us into  uncharted waters.  This is a risk we should not take with our kids. Only a fool would assume increased Government spending in this area over the next difficult years.

 

6. There seem to be some hasty assertions of what can be forced on teachers and the subject. The assertion that it is totally the teacher’s job to provide all the resources and needs for new  decontextualised units seems more like a means of ducking responsibility for the consequences of the decision to decontextualise than promoting sound professional behaviour. It could lead to frantic rushed efforts to the internet .  We penalize the kids for surging over the net and grabbing  and presenting stuff willy-nilly. We don’t want to send teachers down the same path. To develop good units takes time and consideration. The kids deserve that.  The use of the phrase “extended piece of writing” similarly seems like a way of not taking the time and effort to reform the descriptors of what an essay should be in a professional way.

 

7. It is hard to believe the Ministry is serious in not taking teacher workload into account as part of this process. If the cart is too heavy for the horse to pull then it doesn’t matter what is in it. If this is the ministry’s argument the newsmedia would have a field day with any poor spokesman it grabbed to justify it, rather like the guy who got caught being too busy to inspect leaky drains and toilets on the East Coast. Funny how he found the time once TV  grabbed him.

 

8. History it seems is out ahead of the rest of the pack in curriculum  development. There is no virtue in this and if the interests of the kids are foremost, as the Ministry claims, then it is better to get it right than get it quick.  We need not be either guinea pigs or judas sheep.

 

9. Could we see a model using prescribed units for external assessment which could have  a 5 year life . In the 3rd year improvements and modernizations could be set up for approval and in the 4^th the new ones announced  for the following year if need be. That way  a constant process of professional review  of  content can be built into the system. and drive the curriculum rather than the assessment regime.  This way a body of New Zealand content could be assured. The internally assessed units could and should give freedom for teachers and local students to strut their  stuff. This will probably need more  moderation than we have now but could also be the source of producing units which all could be  adopted use for external assessment  in the improvement cycle.

 

This would be a practical way to advance in an orderly manner starting from our present strengths, maintaining public confidence, building a process of ongoing  change in our content  and allowing for  local innovation through internally assessed content. The focus of study  could change to the subject and the students rather than the assessment.

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!]

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

 

Feedback on History Matrix Options

 

 

The emphasis on internals

 

This cuts right across concerns about teacher workload and about the credibility of qualifications. The prospect of Year 13 students turning up to a one hour external paper at the end of the year is farcical – only in New Zealand.

 

After resisting Cambridge in the expectation that credibility issues were being resolved, these options leave us in an awkward position in our internal school debate. We suspect that these proposals will result in a 2-tier system, as more schools opt for Cambridge International exams in History and other subjects to meet the expectations and perceptions of their parents and students. It may well not be true that Cambridge is better but teachers (and subjects) who refuse to recognise the importance of public opinion may re-learn a lesson of History. If the Ministry is pushing internals for its own reasons, there will also be more pressure on all teachers through increasingly oppressive moderation regimes to appear to be addressing concerns of principals, parents and employers.

 

Our original confusion about the source of pressure for more, or all, internals has been resolved but we still prefer Option 2 as the best of an unsatisfactory set. We believe there should be more true externals, in fact much as at present, but at least it offers a rough 50:50 split, provided the 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 compromise is accepted. By keeping 6 standards for Level 1 and 2 it also better facilitates the practice of dropping a standard and still having a solid number of credits and skills on offer. This would allow schools to weight their courses to internal or external as they see fit.

 

We believe the exam component is important to maintaining both credibility and a sound basis for future study. There is no evidence that Universities or Polytechnics are abandoning exams and we owe it to our students to prepare them, especially at Year13, for the realities of tertiary education. Though we could use exam format for some standards internally, we object to yet another job being dropped on us without time or money in compensation, and without the advantage of a properly-organised marking system. Each school will be separately doing something that should be centrally-resourced.

 

This will also reinforce the growing trend of students stopping work in subjects when they have attained the minimum credit requirement. This has serious consequences in subsequent studies as the gaps become glaringly obvious. We will not be able to leave assessment to the very end of the year because of the pressures on students from all their subjects, and because of moderation timetables, unless these change radically.   

 

A balanced approach is generally preferable in most areas of dispute and this is no exception, unless the intention is to divide history teachers irrevocably. Even if we are part of a minority, it is, we believe, a significant one. Driving us to consider alternative assessment systems will do History and NZ education little good in the long run.

 

 

Comments on specifics of Option 2

 

1          The use of the term “event” in 1.1/2, 2.1/2, 3.1/2 is concerning. There is no definition and we would strenuously object if it excluded research topics that explored significant developments that are not single events e.g. the political and social changes of the 1960s, or the Roaring Twenties. Social issues, in particular, are rarely based on single events. Note the problem of putting social questions into “Decisions” in Year 13 now. We suggest the modification “event or development” to avoid the emphasis on the political, especially in standards which have so far encouraged a wider view.

 

2          We are unhappy with the excessive use of the expression “of significance to New Zealanders”.  Its absence from all but one of Level 3 standards suggests it has much more significance than is claimed. We appreciate the flexibility this implies at Level 3 but see no reason to treat the other levels differently.

            Can we rely on the unsigned statement about this on the NZHTA website? It is certainly not so clear in the matrix document. The old questions come to mind. Who will decide if we are meeting the standard? On what criteria apart from the inadequate definition provided? Does the Russian Revolution qualify? What do we have to do to justify it? To us the triumph of Marxist ideas in Russia unleashes repercussions of huge significance to NZ in the 1930s and the Cold War period. However, does this have to be included in the role-plays created by the students, or just implied or stated in the assignment notes given to the students?

            Please note we are not opposed to studying specific NZ contexts at Level 1 and 2 though we prefer to do it mainly through 1.2 and 2.2, rather than as an exam requirement. We have persevered, and would continue to persevere, with 1.6.

 

3          The use of the term “primary” in 1.3 narrows the range of resources too much. It is important to require students to recognise the difference between primary and secondary sources, and the significance of this. Secondary sources have to be included to do this effectively.

 

4          1.6 seems to be a distinct improvement, bringing it into line with 1.5, and hopefully producing more straight-forward questions as a result.

 

5          2.6 is an acceptable replacement for the fraught identity essay which confused teachers and pupils alike. It seems a logical step towards 3.4 but we would like to know how it would be assessed. Is it to be contextualised? Will it involve extended writing? With or without the formalities of the essay? We need to know the answers to be able to give full approval.

 

6          3.1/2 worries us because 9 credits ride on this. It seems to increase the problem of “all or nothing” in NCEA. If the current research aspects become elements in a “super standard” it is very easy for students to miss everything on technicalities. The more elements in a standard the worse this becomes. We think this should remain divided into 2 standards.

 

 

 

7          The issue of contextualised questions does not appear to have been fully-addressed. We have been discussing this issue without reaching a firm conclusion. Option 2 helps, but maybe we need to agree on a compulsory core of 3-4 topics, closer to the Year 13 model, (especially for Year 12); require study of at least one of them; and set exam questions on all of them. The Ministry might find external assessment of essays acceptable if we could find common ground on a limited range of topics. Or is the Ministry pushing for decontextualised questions in other subjects as well, on the basis that the curriculum does not state content? This could have serious implications for many areas of study. Perhaps we could have a combination of, say, 3 contextualised choices and one decontextualised option for the exam essay at Level 1 and 2. Would this be any more difficult to mark than the current range in Year 11? It might accommodate the different interests amongst teachers.

 

 

History Teachers

Christchurch Boys’ High School

 

D Burrowes

H Dacre

M Drury

P Wyatt (HOD)

 

12/08/08         

I can live with them all but prefer the first option as more liable to maintain standards. Students need practice to train their recall faculties and revision techniques for at least a two – hour exam sitting.

G. Cleveland,

Hi everyone

 

Firstly, thanks for all the time you have put in to try to square the circle in trying to align standards to the new curriculum AOs, while keep teacher preferences in mind. Truly, a labour of Hercules. I hope that these comments will help you to resolve some issues and assist you in your discussions.

 

Firstly, some general comments. I know that we can only work from the titles provided in the matrices and can’t see the achievement criteria and explanatory notes, but we can work from current knowledge of related standards. As far as the Special Study-related standards are concerned, (1.1/1.2, 2.1/2.2, 3.1/3.2) they look OK to me, except for the word “ideas” in 2.2. I’m a little concerned that the focus is upon the abstract rather than the narrative aspect of communication of understanding at this level. If “ideas” must remain, include “and evidence” so that the focus is not entirely on ideas. I understand that the purpose of including “ideas” could be to prevent plagiarised narrative alone, but I am sure that moderation experience has shown that most students DON’T address historical ideas directly, and are mentioned in passing or indirectly rather than as a specific focus. Ideas aren’t mentioned in the Level 1 or 3 equivalents so I think we should be consistent across three levels.

 

Secondly, I applaud the idea of the new internally assessed debate standard at Level 3. This is the means to open up new teaching contexts for Level 3 history – badly needed in my opinion. However, I’m uneasy about the word “evaluate”. I think it’s too difficult a process for most Level 3 students – it’s more of a Scholarship ability in my view – and I would prefer “analyse”, as I think is the word used in the indicators for the Level 8 AOs.

 

Thirdly, we need to get clarity over how any contexts for externally assessed standards in any of the options are going to be identified, because I think this is critical to teacher understanding and buy-in of whatever option is eventually decided upon. Who will decide on these contexts – NZHTA advice, or an examiner? How will history teachers know before they design their learning programmes for 2010 and beyond – will these endorsed contexts be contained within explanatory notes, as an appendix to an externally assessed standard, or in well-publicised assessment specifications? Teachers NEED to know this before making an informed choice about which option would be best. I appreciate you may have a job ahead of you convincing the NZQA/MOE people, but there MUST be a shared understanding among teachers, examiners and markers about what is expected in externally assessed standards.

 

Finally, what is the thinking behind requiring Level 1 source interpretation to only be primary sources?

 

Now for specific comment about the different options.

 

Option 1: I would like to know why the NZQA review group wanted essays to be internally assessed, and why they are to be de-contextualised (or generic, to use the current terminology). The experience of Level 2 is that many history teachers don’t like generic essays, and anyway, if the essays are to be internally assessed, what is to stop teachers setting a specific question on the Easter Rising or the Munich Crisis? I quite like the idea of the five standards with credit reallocation.

 

Option 2: I could see how this could be a goer, but we still have the same issue with 1.6 as in Option 1. If it is to be externally assessed, unless specific New Zealand contexts are specified, the assessment will have to be generic, and as for Option 1, many teachers hate that. If 1.3 is to be taken from a range of contexts, and 2.3 from one context, what are these contexts going to be and who decides? And how are teachers going to know this? (See my point “Thirdly” above). I could also see some teachers balking at only one externally assessed standard at Level 3, given the high stakes nature of assessment in Year 13. And again, in what context(s) would 90656 be set – Tudor-Stuart or 19^th C NZ? Wouldn’t that just encourage the status quo rather than the context experiment that is desirable in Year 13 history? (Rather than students studying one context all year, which is harming Year 13 history at present.)

 

Option 3: I don’t mind the idea of the moderation of essays by the National Moderator, and it allows teachers to set content-specific topics. There would need to be some clear guidelines in terms of conditions (prepared essays versus in-class “test” essays?). The existence of only one externally assessed standard at each level might cause some ructions because of the perceived greater validity of external assessment in comparison to internal assessment.

 

Option 4: I’d have no problem with this, but there is the possible issue of workload!

 

It seems to me that we are going through a number of unnecessary contortions in assessing which of these options is best because of an unwillingness by the NZQA/MOE people to accept the necessity of identifying SOME contexts for external assessment, whichever the standard. If they would do this, then Option 1 would be the most straight-forward in my view. We could probably manage with de-contextualised foci for 1.3/2.3 as at present but 90656 still presents a problem, unless that is de-contextualised as well (not likely to make people happy either). Options 2 and 3 can work, but again, only if teachers have prior knowledge of assessed contexts for external standards.

 

I hope that these initial mental perambulations are helpful in identifying some issues for history teachers. I am sure you have traversed them yourselves. You have my thanks, support and best wishes in your continuing struggles on behalf of us all.

 

 

Cheers

 

Paul O’Connor

 

The New Zealand History Curriculum is derived from two Achievement Objectives. Teaching and Learning Guidelines are currently being written from these to provide guidance to teachers with unpacking the Achievement Objectives at each level and programme planning ideas.

These Achievement Objectives are as follows:
Year 11, Curriulum Level 6
NZ Curriculum Level 6:
Students will gain knowledge, skills, and experience to:

Understand how the causes and consequences of past events that are of significance to New Zealanders shape the lives of people and society

Understand how people’s perspectives on past events that are of significance to New Zealanders differ

Year 12, Curriulum Level 7
Students will gain knowledge, skills, and experience to:

Understand how historical forces and movements have influenced the causes and consequences of events of significance to New Zealanders

Understand how people’s interpretations of events that are of significance to New Zealanders differ

Year 13, Curriulum Level 8
Students will gain knowledge, skills, and experience to:

Understand that the causes, consequences and explanations of historical events that are of significance to New Zealnders are complex and how and why they are contested

Understand how trends over time reflect social, economic, and political forces.

The definition of ‘of an event of significance to New Zealanders’ is as follows:
Those events occurring within New Zealand, and/or global events involving New Zealand, and/or global events influencing New Zealand, thus New Zealand history is seen within wider global contexts where possible. Historical scholarship now encourages students of history to look for points of connection and intersection, for similarities and differences and transcends the boundaries of nation states.

At present NZHTA have designed four potential matrices, these are outlined below with accompanying notes. These are a result of hours of discussion and debate in the executive and feedback from Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications Authority officials.

Please bear in mind that there no prescribed topics from 2010 at Levels 1, 2 and 3. The topics that are currently being taught are no longer mandated or prescribed from the implementation of the Curriulum in 2010. Therefore, teachers can teach anything as long as it reflects the Achievement Objectives. While this does not preclude the existing topics being taught, they must be tweaked to fit the Achievement Objectives.

The NZHTA definition for ‘of an event of significance to New Zealanders’ is:
Those events occurring within New Zealand, and/or global events involving New Zealand, and/or global events influencing New Zealand, thus New Zealand history is seen within wider global contexts where possible. Historical scholarship now encourages students of history to look for points of connection and intersection, for similarities and differences and transcends the boundaries of nation states.
Thus teachers need to provide opportunities for students to see links between New Zealand and the world. Contexts are not limited to simply New Zealand topics.