Transcript Slide 1
_________________________________________________ THE NATIONAL BENCHMARK TESTS PROJECT a national service to Higher Education __________________________________________________ Why did HESA commission the NBTP? 1. Demonstrable inefficiencies in Higher Education itself (low throughput etc.) • • Difficulties in identifying students’ educational needs Lack of appropriate curriculum flexibility at entry to meet these needs 1. Concerns about how to interpret the new NSC In summary …. • The NBTP is about higher education getting its own act in order – it is not about pointing fingers at the school system • It sets out to do this by providing information about the competence of entering students in terms of 3 core domains of knowledge / skills • it is important to note that higher education’s ‘take’ on what these core sets are, and at what level they should be mastered, will in all probability differ somewhat from those deemed most salient by the school-leaving system. What do the NBTs aim to do? – Provide additional information about performance in core, underlying areas (additional to NSC information) – The core (domain) areas are: • Academic literacy • Quantitative literacy • Mathematics one 3-hr test one 3-hr test AL, QL and Maths • AL: Students’ capacity to engage successfully with the demands of academic study in the medium of instruction. • QL: Students’ ability to manage situations or solve problems of a quantitative nature in real contexts relevant to higher education. • Maths: Students’ manifest ability related to mathematical concepts formally part of the NSC Mathematics curriculum. 100% Proficient Performance in domain areas suggests that academic performance will not be adversely affected. If admitted, students should be placed on regular programmes of study. Challenges in domain areas identified such that it is predicted that academic progress will be affected. Intermediate Basic 0% If admitted, students’ educational needs should be met in a way deemed appropriate by the institution (eg extended or augmented programmes, special skills provision). Serious learning challenges identified: it is predicted that students will not cope with degree level study without extensive & long-term support, perhaps best provided through bridging programmes or FET. Institutions registering students performing at this level would need to provide such support. NBT information INDIVIDUAL LEVEL • • • Benchmark level (Basic, Intermediate, Proficient) Description of what this means for each domain (ie what does being in the ‘Basic’ category mean a student knows and can do in Mathematics) Clear recommendations about the type and extent of support needed GROUP LEVEL • • At the level of a faculty, or qualification, or institution …. Give clear indication of the needs and strengths of entering cohorts, either before entry, or at registration: useful for placement into existing courses, and/or with course design or modification. DATA BASED ON FEB 2009 PILOTS PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS UKZN COMMERCE MANGOSUTHU STELLENBOSCH RHODES UCT UWC WITS TOTAL 189 1124 282 1014 83 1103 3795 217 217 1309 2742 78 457 535 500 653 1372 78 300 378 EDUCATION ENGINEERING 219 301 913 HEALTH SCIENCES HUMANITIES 219 LAW SCIENCE 568 134 TOTAL 1006 624 1124 211 656 283 651 2503 1071 2583 444 4690 11542 ACADEMIC LITERACY (overall) N = 12,202 ACADEMIC LITERACY NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 7000 5780 5571 6000 Challenges identified such that it is predicted that academic progress will be adversely affected. If admitted, students’ educational needs should be met in a way deemed appropriate by the institution (eg extended or augmented programmes, special skills provision) 5000 4000 3000 2000 851 1000 0 Serious learning challenges – long term, pre-tertiary intervention needed. Performance such that academic performance will not be affected. Basic Intermediate Proficient If admitted, students should be placed on regular programmes of study. Total Participating institutions: Mangosuthu, Rhodes, Stellenbosch, UCT, UKZN, UWC, Wits. Academic Literacy (overall) [Top and Bottom Intermediate] N = 12,202 ACADEMIC LITERACY NBT Intermediate Benchmark Level, February 2009 3500 3304 3000 2500 2267 2000 Intermediate Bottom Intermediate Top 1500 1000 500 0 Total ACADEMIC LITERACY by Faculty ACADEMIC LITERACY NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 2500 2289 2000 1500 1393 1256 1179 1067 1007 1000 668 575 500 340 289 250 187 119 63 35 317 141 22 210 142 31 0 Commerce Education Engineering Health Humanities Law Science Basic Intermediate Proficient ACADEMIC LITERACY NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 900 818 800 672 700 600 500 401 400 Basic Intermediate Proficient 300 200 100 36 30 12 219 211 184 0 Commerce Engineering UCT Science Quantitative Literacy N = 12,202 QUANTITATIVE LITERACY NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 7000 6125 6000 5000 4000 Basic 3055 3022 3000 Intermediate Proficient 2000 1000 0 Total Quantitative Literacy by Faculty QUANTITATIVE LITERACY NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 2000 1800 1807 1600 1392 1400 1265 1235 1200 1000 Basic 921 Intermediate 800 600 596 563 400 136 77 200 0 Commerce 673 590 292 179 78 4 Education Engineering Health 121 Humanities 599 669 212 142 29 Law Science Proficient QUANTITATIVE LITERACY NBT Nenchmark Levels, February 2009 600 514 500 444 408 400 353 285 300 243 Intermediate Proficient 200 100 Basic 128 116 92 0 Commerce Engineering UCT Science Mathematics (overall) MATHEMATICS NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 8000 7390 7000 6000 5000 Basic 4000 Intermediate Proficient 3000 2000 1644 737 1000 0 Total Mathematics by Faculty MATHEMATICS NBT Benchmark Levels, February 2009 3000 2765 2500 1956 2000 1658 Basic 1500 Intermediate Proficient 1000 500 910 372 289 387 23 58 43 82 0 Commerce Education Engineering 455 411 Health 50 68 1 Humanities 30 80 Law 189 Science QUANTITATIVE LITERACY NBT Nenchmark Levels, February 2009 600 514 500 444 408 400 353 285 300 243 Intermediate Proficient 200 100 Basic 128 116 92 0 Commerce Engineering UCT Science QUANTITATIVE LITERACY NBT Nenchmark Levels, February 2009 600 514 500 444 408 400 353 285 300 243 Intermediate Proficient 200 100 Basic 128 116 92 0 Commerce Engineering UCT Science The Mathematics standards for the benchmark cut-scores are set against: (1) the core Mathematics curriculum for Papers 1 & 2, and (2) what the higher education sector – represented by mainstream academics currently teaching Mathematics at the first year level – believes students need to know and be able to do to cope with first year study in Mathematics.