Assess%20 task%201%20 %20pedagogies

Pedagogies Assessment 1 of 10

Pedagogies Assessment 1 Page 1 of 10

Change has been said to be the only constant by many, with the quote thought to originate

from the philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus. As a principle in modern society it becomes

increasingly relevant with each passing year. It is especially relevant within the

Australian education system in the 21st century as we move toward national curriculum

and national ‘high-stakes’ testing.

The national curriculum is planned to impact every key learning area (KLA) over the next

decade (ACARA, 2010). There is currently no national curriculum discussion for the

method areas being studied by the author of this paper (Technology and Applied Studies -

Computing and Human Society and Its Environment – Commerce / Business Studies).

Experiences of the planned national curriculum on other KLAs will be referenced where

appropriate.

Curricula in Australia are the government-driven documents defining teaching and

learning for school students. The aim of teaching is said to be to help students get to the

point where they can independently do what they have been learning (Riordan, 2005).

Curricula are the highest-level plans aimed at ensuring students achieve learning

outcomes. They address KLA specific elements such as knowledge and skills as well as

broader outcomes including values and attitudes. Some elements of knowledge are seen

as ‘cross-curricular’ in nature. These are addressed in many or all curricula, even though

they naturally fit within a specific KLA. Examples in the current curriculum include

students developing in terms of civics, diversity, literacy and numeracy. The planned

national curriculum places particular focus on Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander

issues, Asian engagement and sustainability (ACARA, 2010).

It has been decided at a government level that the various states in Australia are to be

united in education through a national curriculum. It is noted that curriculum

development is not an isolated education-based activity, there are also social, political and

economic drivers at play (Brady & Kennedy, 2010).

In principle, the national curriculum is seen as a welcome proposition; having multiple

curricula for a relatively small country is not seen as practical (McDonald, 2010). Despite

the in-principle approval, its introduction has been met with resistance. At a state



government level, it is felt that the planned national curriculum may compare

unfavourably with existing curriculum. If the national curriculum does not reach the

‘level’ of existing state curriculum NSW is reticent to sign up (McDonald, 2010).

A key issue sought with existing drafts of the national curriculum is the larger volume of

work prescribed. Significant differences exist between teaching times allocated in the

planned national curriculum and both the existing hours from the NSW BOS syllabi and

the hours for which departments are staffed (NSW_Board_of_Studies, 2010). In both

comparisons the planned national curriculum exceeds existing hours by substantial

amounts. This proposes resourcing issues, for example in the mathematics KLA that is

already an area of staff-shortage.

In addition to resourcing, an increase in teaching times in these areas may of itself

improve subject-specific learning, but may conversely reduce the time available for study

in other areas (NSW_Board_of_Studies, 2010). Hours are planned to increase in most

KLAs – including the ‘traditional’ core subjects (English, Mathematics, Science and

History) for which drafts exist. Such a change has the potential to significantly affect

those KLAs in areas yet to be drafted, especially ‘elective’ subjects such as computing

and commerce.

Excessive time allocations also present risks of content overload and subsequent student

disengagement (NSW_Board_of_Studies, 2010). One proposed correction to this scenario

is a substantial reduction in the amount of content expected for each unit of time indicated

to writers. (NSW_Board_of_Studies, 2010).

Looking at potential advantages of the planned national curriculum, it is pointed out by

the responsible body ACARA that jurisdictions, systems and schools will be able to

implement the national curriculum tailored to their own requirements. It will be possible

to utilise teachers’ professional knowledge, tailor content to local areas and accommodate

individual differences (ACARA, 2010). Schools and teachers will be able to decide on

pedagogy (ACARA, 2010), much as they do today with the state-developed curriculum.

This is particularly advantageous with elective KLAs such as computing and commerce,

which are currently defined by unique strategy orientations, project and report-based



respectively. It is also of note is that an inherent advantage of a national curriculum will

by definition also enable a smoother transition for students and teachers alike when

transitioning between states.

Independently of education and curricula, society is changing at an ever-increasing

rate. Students do not expect their classrooms and learning methods to lag behind what

they experience in their homes and society. The introduction of technology into the

classroom was inevitable, and came with much promise (Halverson & Smith, 2010).

Most modern classrooms closely resemble those of yesteryear on a superficial level –

there is still a teacher, students, desks and chairs. A more thorough inspection reveals

significant differences – students with personal laptops and mobile phones,

classrooms with interactive white boards and Internet connectivity. Problematic is that

while ICT may be integrating into the classroom, core activities of schools will need

to change for the integration to be successful (Hayes, 2007). This change has also

leading to a change in teacher roles and responsibilities (Aslan, Huh, Lee, &

Reigeluth, 2010); such activities are often entrenched in the curriculum.

ACARA acknowledge the importance of the changing the ways people share, use,

develop and process information and technology due to rapid advances in ICT, explicitly

stating that young people need to be highly skilled in ICT (ACARA, 2010). Studies have

shown that learning will be revolutionised by depth, authenticity, challenge and

technological connectivity (Hallisey, 2007). The challenge is said to be great (Chambers,

2007). It is important that curriculum planners facilitate 21st century teaching and

learning, as it will not happen by accident, but it will need to happen by design (Hallisey,

2007).

It is often no longer considered sufficient by students or teachers for students to read

about concepts in a text. Modern expectations include the same subject areas being

studied through observing video or engaging with them in simulations (Stier &

Laingen, 2010). Opportunities exist in the digital age for concepts to be represented in

innumerable ways, and even for traditionally textbook-intensive subjects to be taught

without textbooks (Stavrianeas, Stewart, & Harmer, 2008). Some even suggest that



teaching is simply not effective without appropriate technological resource facilitation

(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

Process-based curricula focusing on explaining how teachers are to teach will date

quickly in the 21st century. Today there exists a much broader selection of teaching

strategies, and we cannot imagine strategies and effects thereof on the dynamic but

unclear road ahead (Halverson & Smith, 2010). Whilst it is tempting to suggest that

curricula should be written with a technology focus, it needs to be considered that not

all schools are on an equal technological footing. Additionally, care needs to be taken

with regard to appropriate implementation of ICT focus in both curricula and

pedagogy, as there is a tendency for “doing” using ICT to overtake “knowing” subject

matter (Jedeskog & Nissen, 2004). Perhaps an appropriate recommendation would be

that to facilitate 21st century teaching and learning, curriculum should be largely

content-based. Such a direction permits teachers to choose pedagogy that best takes

utilises available technological support.

Finally to be addressed with regard to 21st century teaching and learning is the change in

the nature of knowledge. In the past a goal for many students was locating scarce

knowledge, the challenge for students today is sifting through the vast pool of knowledge,

analyzing it, and collaborating to solve problems (Chambers, 2007). Teaching students to

source and filter appropriate information through 21st century research methods could

thus be defined as an important 21st century goal throughout all curricula.

The modern data-obsessed world has impacted the teaching profession, and education

as a whole, in more an arguably more significant way than through its application in

the classroom. The ability to record and process any volume of data has brought with

it a significant change in the accountability applied to teaching. There exists a trend in

which student performance, school performance and thus teacher accountability is

moving toward being measured in terms of test scores. Unfortunately, it is the case

that teaching is not simply transmitting information, and learning is not simply

receiving information that can be tested (Cochran-Smith, 2006).



One effect of this practice is that there is less time for teaching. Time spent on testing –

and the associated preparation, practice tests and strategies – is time taken from teaching

(Nichols & Parsons, 2010). Students suffer directly from testing, due directly to the loss

of learning time.

Assessment within regular curriculum is often less KLA-oriented than optimal due to

most KLAs forcing structured, written exams. Whilst the TAS syllabus directs study to be

undertaken in a project-oriented manner (BOS, 2010), the HSC exam is a written exam

testing large amounts of theory. This situation may exist as HSC exams are seen as

necessary by the Board of Studies in NSW to scale internal assessments, and are

relatively cost effective to assess. Elective KLAs such as computing with unique

instructional methods could perhaps follow the path of electives such as music and art

that employ KLA-specific external testing (in the form of major work & performance

marking) as a more appropriate method of final external assessment.

With time in elective KLAs likely to decrease if the national curriculum is implemented

as planned, the introduction of the National Assessment Program – Literacy and

Numeracy (NAPLAN) ‘high-stakes’ testing in addition to traditional testing has the

potential to affect elective KLAs further. Such a pattern has already been seen in the US,

where non-tested subjects are sidelined or are pushed out of the curriculum altogether,

with high-stakes testing also seen as being responsible for standardising the curricular

form of how knowledge is taught (Au, 2011). To date, accountability issues have

perhaps not yet impacted Australian curriculum to the degree seen overseas, but there

are still significant effects being witnessed and suggested, including an increased

focus on literacy and numeracy in existing curricula (Masters, 2010).

One disappointing effect of high-stakes NAPLAN assessment could be that even if

elective subjects are kept in the curriculum, they may lose teacher focus. Whether the

curriculum is state or national, if teachers feel the testing does not align with the

curriculum it may be ignored (Masters, 2010). The most prevalent finding in the

empirical research in the U.S. is that high-stakes testing narrows the instructional

curriculum because, to varying degrees, teachers shape the content norms of their



programs to match that of the high-stakes tests (Au, 2011; Measham, 2010). More simply,

teachers “teach to the tests”. With regard to elective KLAs, this is likely cause significant

issues, as the content and skills required in electives are often largely outside the scope of

NAPLAN testing. This is especially so with regard to the computing KLA, which teaches

ITC literacy and skills that are clearly seen as important in the 21st century (ACARA,

2010; Hallisey, 2007), but are untested by NAPLAN.

Due to the effects of standardised testing, the education system in the United States now

has a more prescriptive curriculum, and perhaps more significantly teachers have less

scope with lesson planning (Pollak, 2009). Such a problem may not eventuate for modern

Australian teachers using current methods, as the NAPLAN standardised testing is said to

be developed to reflect the modern curricula (Perso, 2009). That said, conflicting views

exist, with some identifying a gap existing between measurement and instruction (Wyatt-

Smith, 1998), especially for those teachers not using current methods (Perso, 2009). It

will be interesting to observe the effects over coming years due to the relative newness of

standardised testing in Australia, combined with the rollout of the national curriculum, to

see ongoing effects on teachers and students.

It is of note that approximately 90% of students have been found in NAPLAN testing to be

achieving at least the “minimum standards”, a percentage well above the national all-age

averages for literacy (Hempenstall, 2009). Benchmarks for these minimum standards are not

publicised; teachers and the community alike are not aware of what level of achievement is

represented. Not only does this lack of transparency hamper the use of results in education,

but it provides the potential for governments to manipulate the data to be seen as effective

(Hempenstall, 2009). There are also significant questions over whether NAPLAN actually

tests what it aims to test, or whether some components, for example literacy, are over

examined as they re-tested when testing numeracy (Perso, 2009).

The national curriculum is on the horizon, albeit suffering from continual delays, ICT is

advancing at unheralded rates providing a multiplicity of new methods and strategies and

the era of high-stakes assessment has arrived. Curriculum in this light is a target for

significant focus and scrutiny. Curriculum planners must focus on what students need to



know, but also take into account that the 21st century environment is dynamic with regard

to both what is taught and how. Assessment is no longer just simply of students, but is of

students to assess teachers and schools, and this impacts teachers and the curriculum that

they teach. The path forward seems unclear, but if all stakeholders are willing to

contribute, to balance needs and to embrace change, education in Australia will continue

to prosper.



References ACARA, A. C., Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). The Shape of the

Australian Curriculum. 2.0.

Aslan, S., Huh, Y., Lee, D., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2010). The role of personalized

integrated educational systems in the information-‐age paradigm of education.

Paper presented at the The Annual Convention of the Association for

Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high‚Äêstakes testing and the

standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

43(1), 25-‐45. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2010.521261

BOS, B. o. S. N. (2010). Information and Techology Processes Syllabus 2010.

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/ipt.html.

Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2010). The school curriculum and its stakeholders: who

owns the curriculum? Sydney: Pearson Australia.

Chambers, J. (2007). 21st-‐century Mindset, Editorial, Community College Journal, pp.

11-‐11. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc

t=true&db=ehh&AN=31976464&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cochran-‐Smith, M. (2006). Ten Promising Trends (and Three Big Worries).

Educational Leadership, 63(6), 20-‐25.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-‐Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How

Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-‐284.

Hallisey, R. (2007). It's a Plan: Education for 21st-‐century Teaching and Learning.

Teacher: The National Education Magazine, 40-‐43.

Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How New Technologies Have (and Have Not)

Changed Teaching and Learning in Schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 26(2), 49-‐54.



Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms.

Computers & Education, 49(2), 385-‐395. doi:

10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.003

Hempenstall, K. (2009). Research-‐Driven Reading Assessment: Drilling to the Core.

Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14(1), 17-‐52.

Holden, S. (2010). Testing Times in May. Teacher: The National Education Magazine,

62.

Jedeskog, G., & Nissen, J. (2004). ICT in the Classroom : Is Doing More Important

than Knowing? Education and Information Technologies, 9:1, 37-‐45.

Masters, G. (2010). NAPLAN and My School Shedding Light on a Work in Progress.

Teacher: The National Education Magazine, 22-‐25.

McDonald, T. (2010). NSW criticises national curriculum plans. The World Today

Retrieved 22/08/2011, 2011

Measham, F. (2010). Why NAPLAN Boycott Must Happen. Eureka Street, 20(8), 33-‐

34.

Nichols, S., & Parsons, J. (2010). Enhancing Democracy for Teachers: Online

Submission.

NSW_Board_of_Studies. (2010). NSW response to the draft K–10 Australian

curriculum for English, History, Mathematics and Science.

Perso, T. (2009). Cracking the NAPLAN Code: Numeracy and Literacy Demands.

Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 14(3), 14-‐18.

Pollak, C. J. (2009). Teacher Empowerment and Collaboration Enhances Student

Engagement in Data-‐Driven Environments: Online Submission.

Riordan, T. (2005). EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: TEACHING, LEARNING,

AND ASSESSMENT. Change, 37, 52-‐52-‐56.

Stavrianeas, S., Stewart, M., & Harmer, P. (2008). Beyond the Printed Page:

Physiology Education without a Textbook? Advances in Physiology Education,

32(1), 76-‐80.

Stier, K., & Laingen, M. (2010). Using Simulation to Introduce Engineering Concepts.

Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(3), 20-‐26.



Wyatt-‐Smith, C. (1998). Standardised Testing-‐-‐In Whose Interests? English in

Australia(122), 89-‐93.

Assess%20 task%201%20 %20pedagogies

Education

Transcript of Assess%20 task%201%20 %20pedagogies