Aligning the curriculum and the NCEA: Implications for subjects in the senior secondary school

1. 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

2. My key assumptions … • NZC provides a framework for learning that should apply from year 1 toyear 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)

3. The potential for big picture alignment Knowledge era: new views of knowledge, ICTs, globalization, diversity, rapid change, etc. New types of assessment (NCEA, NEMP, formative assessment, asTTle and PATs = more informative national tools for literacy, numeracy) 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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)

7. KCs/subject connections: what, how, why? e.g. of C21 outcomes Disciplined Synthesizing Creating Respectful Ethical Key competencies Thinking Participating and contributing Relating to others Managing self Using language, symbols and texts How do subjects contribute? How might big picture links be established?

8. 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?

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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 Knowing the science: easy Constructing the simple chain of reasoning: very difficult Seeing the big picture: priceless

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

14. 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.

15. 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 action-type research in schools and more theoretical considerations), especially in more content dominated subjects

16. 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.