Posts Tagged ‘NCEA’
James Cook High School – response
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 6th 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.
Auckland Grammar School Response to Matrix
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
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]
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:
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!]
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!]
