R Hipkins21.04.08

Rosemary HipkinsNew Zealand Council for Educational Research

Aligning the curriculum and the Aligning the curriculum and the NCEA: Implications for subjects in NCEA: Implications for subjects in

the senior secondary school the senior secondary school

Presentation to PPTA Subject Association Workshop, Auckland, April 21 2008

R Hipkins21.04.08

My key assumptions …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 Hipkins21.04.08

The revised national curriculum (emphasis on lifelong learning, development of capabilities etc)

By implication...

Deep changes in teaching and learning – including rethinking nature and purpose of subjects

New types of assessment(NCEA, NEMP, formative assessment, asTTle and PATs = more informative national tools for literacy, numeracy)

Knowledge era: new views of knowledge, ICTs, globalization, diversity, rapid change, etc.

The potential for big picture alignmentThe potential for big picture alignment

R Hipkins21.04.08

• 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 Hipkins21.04.08

A traditional view of the role of subjectsA 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 Hipkins21.04.08

Knowledge and its organisation

Capabilities

Teaching through knowledge FOR capabilities (i.e. key competencies)

Disciplinary knowledge is the basis through which we teach for capabilities (as outcomes in their own right)

A new model of curriculum implementation

What do we want our kids to be?

R Hipkins21.04.08

KCs/subject connections: what, how, why?KCs/subject connections: what, how, why?

e.g. of C21 outcomese.g. of C21 outcomes

Disciplined Disciplined

Synthesizing Synthesizing

CreatingCreating Respectful Respectful

EthicalEthical

Key competenciesKey competencies

ThinkingThinking

Participating and Participating and contributingcontributing

Relating to others Relating to others

Managing self Managing self

Using language, symbols Using language, symbols and textsand texts

How do subjects contribute?How might big picture links be established?

R Hipkins21.04.08

Developing Key Competencies through the Developing Key Competencies through the Essential Learning areasEssential 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 Hipkins21.04.08

Pseudo ‘qualitative’ differences?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 Hipkins21.04.08

Rethinking A/M/E differencesRethinking 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 Hipkins21.04.08

An example from EnglishAn 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 Hipkins21.04.08

Using content knowledge when making good personal Using content knowledge when making good personal decisions (P+C fore-grounded)decisions (P+C fore-grounded)

ARB item LW0542How 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

Knowing the science: easy

Constructing the simple chain of reasoning: very difficult

Seeing the big picture: priceless

R Hipkins21.04.08

Real issues don’t sit neatly in subject slots – collaboration is needed here

R Hipkins21.04.08

Coherence and relationships between subjectsCoherence 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 Hipkins21.04.08

Other implications of such a changeOther 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 action-type research in schools and more theoretical considerations), especially in more content dominated subjects

R Hipkins21.04.08

ReferencesReferences

• 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.