Transcript No Slide Title

Aligning the curriculum and the
NCEA: Implications for subjects in
the senior secondary school
Presentation to PPTA Subject Association
Workshop, Auckland, April 21 2008
Rosemary Hipkins
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
R Hipkins
21.04.08
My key assumptions …
• NZC provides a framework for learning that
should apply from year 1 to year 13
• Assessment for qualifications should provide
achievement information related to the
purposes for learning that we say we value
• Such purposes should reflect current thinking
about learning challenges in the 21st century
(both in NZ and internationally)
R Hipkins
21.04.08
The potential for big picture alignment
Knowledge era: new views of knowledge, ICTs,
globalization, diversity, rapid change, etc.
The revised national curriculum
(emphasis on lifelong learning,
development of capabilities etc)
New types of assessment
(NCEA, NEMP, formative
assessment, asTTle and PATs =
more informative national tools
for literacy, numeracy)
By implication...
Deep changes in teaching and learning –
including rethinking nature and purpose of
subjects
R Hipkins
21.04.08
• To achieve alignment, we need to build strong, demonstrable and
coherent links between the NZC and the NCEA at the senior
secondary level
• This needs to happen in a principled and systematic way that is
clear to everyone with a stake in the outcomes of senior secondary
education
• We need to begin by reviewing purposes for learning and
assessment
What valued outcomes might students demonstrate as a
result of participation in learning in your subject?
How would you defend the right of your subject to keep
its place in the curriculum if this was (hypothetically)
under threat?
R Hipkins
21.04.08
A traditional view of the role of subjects
Knowledge and its organisation
Teaching OF subjects
Based on Reid, 2006 – this fits comfortably with traditional
curriculum planning models
R Hipkins
21.04.08
A new model of curriculum implementation
What do we want our kids to be?
Capabilities
Teaching through knowledge FOR
capabilities (i.e. key competencies)
Knowledge and its organisation
Disciplinary knowledge is the basis through
which we teach for capabilities (as outcomes in
their own right)
R Hipkins
21.04.08
KCs/subject connections: what, how, why?
e.g. of C21 outcomes
Key competencies
Disciplined
Thinking
Synthesizing
Participating and
contributing
Creating
Relating to others
Respectful
Managing self
Ethical
Using language, symbols
and texts
How do subjects contribute?
How might big picture links be established?
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Developing Key Competencies through the
Essential Learning areas
When students engage critically within each learning area in the curriculum, they
have opportunities to develop these competencies. (e.g. see Reid, 2006)
We need a clear consistent message here:
•
KCs do not replace knowledge!
•
But they can powerfully transform what students can do with it!
What if, the transformative potential of the KCs was used
to rework criteria for merit and excellence?
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Pseudo ‘qualitative’ differences?
Achieve:
Knows some stuff
Merit:
Knows quite a lot of stuff
Excellence:
Knows heaps of stuff and
some of it is really hard!
This type of thinking may be a misrepresentation of
the intent of NCEA but it is not uncommon and too
easily translates into negative and seemingly
capricious assessment experiences for students…
It also leads to a ballooning curriculum
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Rethinking A/M/E differences
• What sorts of things might students be expected to
do with their knowledge if capabilities are the
expected outcome from a learning area?
• Can we describe qualitative differences in how well
they might do these things?
• Should we review all the standards in a framework
like this – call them all ‘achievement standards’ but
only allow M and E levels when clear qualitative
differences, aligned to the curriculum framework,
can be demonstrated?
R Hipkins
21.04.08
An example from English
Reading and interpreting a poem by Robert Frost:
• recognising the literal specifics of the text (on the lines)
• relating significance of text to own everyday experience (e.g.
Maria sees the ‘watchman’ as a cop on his daily routine)
• Seeing correlates to more universal emotions and themes (e.g.
Mary sees the clock as a symbol of the time Frost has left,
telling him he can’t die yet)
summarised from Gee, 2000
There is a clear qualitative difference between each type of reading.
What are the implications for: Exemplars? A/M/E criteria? Making reliable
judgements?
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Using content knowledge when making good personal
decisions (P+C fore-grounded)
ARB item LW0542
How safe are your sunglasses?
Pupil reflex protects eyes from UV
Sunglasses shade eyes and so
pupils dilate
If glasses are not good UV filters,
more UV can then enter eye
Damage to the retina could be a
consequence of wearing such
glasses
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Knowing the science: easy
Constructing the simple
chain of reasoning: very
difficult
Seeing the big picture:
priceless
Real issues don’t sit
neatly in subject slots –
collaboration is needed
here
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Coherence and relationships between subjects
• Standards that may currently appear to be ‘generic’
despite appearing in several curriculum areas (e.g.
research) will need to be rebuilt on a more
transparent basis of discipline-specific differences
(e.g. in ways of building new knowledge)
• The same ‘content’ may potentially be brought to
bear in a range of standards as students show what
they can do with their learning – the demonstration
of ability to transfer and use what you know places a
stronger emphasis on connections and coherence.
R Hipkins
21.04.08
Other implications of such a change
•
Principled content reduction
•
Opportunities to learn – this is not a matter of being ‘bright’ (or not)
but of active learning in an environment that affords chances to all
students, regardless of their starting point
•
No need for wholesale change in the structure of the qualification
•
No need to sacrifice the curriculum freedom that our research shows
NCEA is opening up
•
But…. our explorations with ARB assessment items suggest new
criteria would need a lot of research-based exploration (both actiontype research in schools and more theoretical considerations),
especially in more content dominated subjects
R Hipkins
21.04.08
References
• Bolstad, R. and Gilbert J. (2008) Disciplining and drafting or
21st. learning: Establishing the senior secondary curriculum for
the future. Wellington, NZCER press.
• Gee, J. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading.
Reading on-line
www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/gee/index.html
• Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the Knowledge Wave? The
Knowledge Society and the future of education. Wellington:
NZCER Press.
• Reid (2007) Key competencies: a new way forward or more of
the same? Curriculum Matters, 2, 43-62.
R Hipkins
21.04.08