Tags: literacy education, NAPLAN
1 comment so far
from Dr Katina Zammit
Katina Zammit argues that the best preparation for the NAPLAN test writing tasks is in the context of meaningful content and purposes, and not through simply practising the test itself.
In 2011 the NAPLAN writing changes from a narrative to an exposition text that students will need to write in year 3, year 5 and year 7. As in the last two NAPLAN writing tests they will all get the same topic and be graded using the same criteria. Teachers want their students to do well. Schools want their school to do well and have a good reputation. But NAPLAN results, and the reporting of them to the general public, do not measure the success of a student, their teacher nor their school.
So teachers in year 3 and year 5 (and year 7 and year 9) are preparing their students – explicitly teaching to the criteria given for the NAPLAN exposition. They are ensuring their students know the structure of an exposition: Thesis statement + preview of arguments ^ Arguments (one per paragraph) ^ Summary (or Recommendation). But how are they implementing this in the classroom? Some teachers will embed the learning about writing in the topic they are teaching: The local environment should be looked after, or Tourists should not visit Antarctica, as part of the HSIE environment unit. But others will take a more traditional approach and just teach about the text in isolation. Students will have practice writing tests – given a topic, a time limit, and instructed to write an exposition.
Some teachers also develop knowledge about language at the sentence level, ie grammatical knowledge. Language choices for an exposition, such as the use of persuasive language and modality, will be on the agenda for year 3 and year 5. But again, how will these be taught? They may be learnt in a meaningful context or as a set of prescriptive elements that must be included. Again the teaching choices we make impact on our students.
To me the process raises several issues with the writing component of NAPLAN: How can a one-off writing test, with a limited inclusion of field knowledge on an issue, be representative of successful writing? How do teachers prepare their class to take the writing test if it is not part of the HSIE, Science and Technology or other learning areas being studied as part of the school curriculum? Teaching to the test is not the most effective practice if we want our students to become successful writers and creators of texts suited to particular contexts. We do not want to go down the same road as many states in the USA. We do not want to become ‘test teachers’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wkJxTwXnk
Katina Zammit is a Lecturer in literacy and English education in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. Her previous blog post was on the use of wikkis in the classroom.
Are we missing vital opportunities to teach? The value of non-emotional responses to negative behaviour April 3, 2011Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Secondary Education.
Tags: classroom management, parenting
1 comment so far
from Dr Danielle Tracey
In this post, Danielle Tracey points out the educational opportunities that can arise when children engage in negative behaviour.
Few would argue that enhancing the social and behavioural functioning of children falls outside the parameters of what teachers and parents strive to achieve. I hope that my post will provoke consideration of how we currently accomplish this, and more importantly, how we appear to miss vital opportunities to achieve this goal.
To demonstrate my position, I’d like to introduce you to two scenarios that centre around ‘Jack’, a Year 1 student in a local school.
At school Jack has difficulty completing a subtraction sum on a timeline in class. His teacher comes over to his desk, praises him for his effort and then begins to explicitly teach him the correct process through instruction and demonstration. The teacher then asks Jack to complete two more questions while she watches and guides him towards the correct answer. She will keep a closer eye on his performance in this area over the coming lessons.
That afternoon Jack arrives home and walks in with his shoe laces untied. His father patiently sits with Jack and first demonstrates how to tie the laces, then takes Jack’s fingers and takes him through the movements whilst verbally instructing each step. His father then asks Jack to give it a go himself, and encourages each attempt made by Jack.
With these two supportive environments it is no doubt that Jack will soon become successful at both completing subtraction problems and tying his shoelaces.
In the playground Jack becomes very excited about a new discovery (a dinosaur egg in the playlawn) and rushes to tell his teacher who is on playground duty. He barges through, oblivious to the fact that his teacher is already in conversation with the Principal. His teacher reprimands him for his actions and says that he is being rude, and sends him immediately on his way.
At home, Jack and his older brother have just purchased the new release Ninjago Lego which is a big hit. Jack snatches the Lego from his older brother in frustration as he has been unable to have a good look at the character. His father enters the room and immediately expresses his disappointment at the boys for their inability to share, confiscates the Lego and sends them to different ends of the house to play independently until they can “learn to play together nicely”.
The difference between the two scenarios
This is the same teacher, and the same parent, who react so differently in these two different situations. Why do we deal with these two situations so differently? Why is it that when seemingly negative behaviour occurs within a young child we move into a discipline mode rather than an educative one? Is it the high emotion of misplaced behaviour, or the assumption that the child has been ‘bad’ and their intention to harm was deliberate rather than mistaken? Whatever the underlying reason, in responding negatively to negative behaviour we are missing an ideal opportunity to teach children appropriate social and behavioural skills.
In the early childhood years, professionals have long recognised the occurrence of mistaken behaviour instead of misbehaviour, and these concepts have been well explored by authors such as Gartrell (2011). Once a child moves out of early childhood, however, we appear to lose the ability to view the child and their behaviour in this way.
So, the challenge is placed before you… the next time a young child demonstrates “poor behaviour”, try to remove the emotion from the situation and teach and guide the child toward appropriate behaviour as you would if they were struggling in any other skill. Or is this easier said than done?
Reference: Gartrell, D. (2011). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Danielle Tracey is a Lecturer in Educational Psychology in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.