misselysee1-blog

[misselysee1-blog]

Section 4- Reflect

When becoming a teacher there are numerous standards which one must take into consideration, the AITSL standards https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards are of up most importance to be followed in order to provide optimal teaching and learning within the classroom. From the research undertaken for this assignment I have learnt to see the importance of numerous AITSL standards such as:

5.2- Provide feedback to students on their learning

5.5- Report on student achievement

5.4- Interpret student data

 I have learnt that these three standards may only work together if the teacher in the classroom does not asses simply to gain “bare ascriptions”( Brady et al 2012 p.5)   of students’ knowledge. Instead  Assessment should be viewed as a “continuous” “Integral part” ( Brady et al 2012 p.5)    of knowing students and how they learn ( AITSL standard 1.1). If a teacher simply try’s to gain bland simple data and interpret this , they will gain no true knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of the student. Therefore they will find it difficult to report back to stakeholders who are actually invested in the child’s true learning. Assessment should not be something that elicits fear and hesitation in students but provide them with opportunity to meet clear target areas with clear criteria so that they  are able to “have responsibility for their learning” ( Brady et al 2012 p.5)   .  I believe that assessment should not be made with such an impact, instead it should be short, sharp frequent and of quality. Formative assessment is beneficial, however when done with no real purpose it is pointless. I believe that wherever possible students should not be made to feel compared instead they should be individually observed. Teachers need to have “flexibility” ( Black &William 1998 p.140)  in their assessment and expect the unexpected as this is often where true knowledge arises. As a teacher in my future classroom I will make sure to track my students learning  wherever possible to truly understand them. However I have learnt this does not need to happen solely through high stakes testing such as Naplan, or daunting end of unit tests.  As a teacher I must ask questions to my students, and create assessment which they are truly able to exhibit their knowledge in their own ways. If teachers have the summative mindset,  they are simply testing to see if a student got an answer correct or incorrect they are missing the whole process of learning which can be achieved through formative assessments. Ultimately I have learnt that I must not assess my students purely with the “purpose of grading” ( Black & William 1998 p.143)  to inform stakeholders. Students should understand their learning through more than just a grade, as if a student is continuously getting low grades they will lose motivation  and view themselves as a cycle of “ repeated failure” ( Black & William 1998 p.143).  I believe this is exactly what high stakes testing does to students, whilst it does provide data it hinders true learning.   Thus my duty as a teacher, is to work with my students through the learning process and help them achieve by providing them with quality feedback. Through this they  will be  able to improve their learning as they will be given steps and strategies on where their learning could be concreated further.  Students should learn for  themselves and not just to provide data. I believe that the ultimate goal for students is to become self-regulated learners, and through knowing my students and giving the ability to show their knowledge  through individualised assessment they will acquire the “ adaptive and autonomous” ( Lorna 2010 p.110) skills required for “ subsequent successful performance”( Lorna 2010 p.110).

[misselysee1-blog]

Section 3- School Culture

SAMPLE 3 - PRE TEST EXAMPLE 

SAMPLE 1- Formative Writing 

TEACHER AND PRINCIPLE INTERVIEWS - SAMPLE 1A 

SAMPLE - 2 STUDENT FEEDBACK 

SAMPLE 3- criteria 

My placement school has a clear desire to allow for all students to learn in a happy and supportive environment, “recognise each child is an individual and develop programs to cater for each students unique needs and style of learning” (Berwick Fields Learning and Teaching Policy). This school wishes to allow for the students to grow as a whole, rather than just purely to leave  the  classroom with knowledge of content. It is evident within the schools culture that this school does not just focus on students as sources of data they are greatly concerned with students friendship and wellbeing. This can be evident through teacher engagement with their students and the overall practices of the school itself. I took the time to interview students within my class about how they feel at school and numerous students said they have never felt pressure to perform when I asked them “are tests scary for you in class?” every student answered “no” with their own reasonings as to why. Some students however stated that they did feel pressure about Naplan and they felt that a lot of the class time had been spent on preparing for this. Students assessment within the classroom was not obvious but subtle, and each student was consulted about ways to improve when they showed the class teacher their work. As an example students undertook opinion writing( SAMPLE 1a) they were not simply given a grade but they were given feedback which provided them with in depth criteria (SAMPLE 2 and SAMPLE 3)and individualised feedback SAMPLE 3. This feedback corelates strongly with my mentor teachers belief that feedback should be “timely” ( MISS B )so that students are able to “reflect and use” ( MISS B)  it for future learning. When new concepts were introduced within the class students undertook Pre Tests (SAMPLE 1 )however there was no pressure placed on them and they were only undertaken to simply inform the teachers as to what she needed to teach. From this all the grade 3 teachers would meet and see where their students were lagging behind in their understandings. This data is then used to insure that learning across the cohort is in sync . Whilst subtle formative testing  was regularly conducted there is also a balanced approach with summative assessments being undertaken for end of unit work. However students are not made to feel stressed about these   but they This corelates with the overall culture of the school as the school principle stated there was no “big focus”  ( PRINCIPLE) on high stakes testing however it was taken into consideration as a duty of the school to report. The principle stated “assessment is integral” (PRINCIPLE)  and this is evident with how regularly and of quality formative assessments were done across the year 3 cohort. Students were made to feel apart of their learning, and were set up with regular self-assessments and peer assessments working towards self-regulation.

[misselysee1-blog]

Section 2: Educational Systems

Comparisons of two educational systems to be found: 

IB- https://infograph.venngage.com/ps/IpFjmC24IE/ib

Department-

https://infograph.venngage.com/ps/TkQbE6JXS94/vic-dep

LINKS 

link 1& 1A- https://www.ibo.org/ & International Baculrate, 2007, ' Making the PYP happen an international framework for primary education', retrived on the 3rd of April 2019 from https://mtpyph.weebly.com/uploads/9/0/6/9/9069240/mtpyph_doc.pdf

Link 2-  DET - State Government of Victoria 2019, Assessment in Principle, State Government of Victoria, retrieved 3 April  2019, <https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/Pages/insight-principle.aspx> 

From analyzing the IB and the Department of Education ( VIC) SEE LINK 1 & 2  it can be seen both educational systems have the mission of creating students who are able to achieve the best learning possible. Both systems are similar in the sense that they put feedback very high in regards to its benefits to student learning. The IB makes sure that formative assessment is continuously conducted through various mediums and takes pride in “developing caring students with inquiring minds who are also taking actions to ‘create a better and peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect” ( Toe et al 2015). Through this statement alone it is apparent that the IB program takes pride in the people that its students becomes, whilst it takes into consideration data it is more so concerned with the qualities its students complete the PYP with. The IB program does not have as much pressure from outside stakeholders its schools are not required to undertake high stakes testing under its policy.  The PYP takes into consideration the “added tensions between state accountability of schools as systems” ( Toe et al 2015) when high stakes testing is involved.  Thus the IB program looks more so at ‘assessment on the process of inquiry as well as the product(s) of inquiry’ ( Toe et al 2015) rather than the pass or fail outlook that the Department of Education employs. Toe (2015) highlights that Through IB the students are assessed by qualities and not so much content thus  its reporting procedures are far more relaxed. However with this in mind, students must show their learning at the end of the PYP program, this can be seen as a form of both summative assessment and formative . Looking at the Department of Education its vision states  "Together we give every Victorian the best learning and development experience, making our state a smarter, fairer and more prosperous place"  ( Department of Education 2018) you can see a clear difference in education being for stakeholder vs for the student in the IB program. This statement shows that the DET aim is to create a smarter state. This can be shown to through their assessment practices in that all schools undertake high stakes testing such as Naplan.  

A lot of learning time is spent to equip students to perform. Whilst both programs look at gathering data and using this to better education, it seems that the DET uses this to look better as  on a grand scale rather than simply bettering the student for their own fulfillment. The Department of education looks at assessing its students to simply gain data to inform stakeholders and policy, where as the IB looks to create better individuals. Whilst both programs wish to allow for student learning the IB program more so allows for its teachers to “diagnose student problems, make judgments about student academic performance and .. effectively lead and manage a classroom” ( Tomilson 2013) without a government body relaying constant benchmarks that their student is not performing.

[misselysee1-blog]

Section 1: NAPLAN VS PISA

Testing is often meant to “motivate students to see what they can do” ( Harlen 2010 p.5)  and allow for teachers to see where their students learning is situated so they are able to plan adequately. However, external testing does not always have these effects and instead “ threatens students feelings about themselves as learners (  Harlen 2010  p. 41). Standardized testing such as NAPLAN and PISA are examples of tests which students must apply their knowledge. These tests will be outlined below:

External tests are often conducted with the assertion that they will provide data which teachers and schools  can work with to improve “efficiency and quality”  ( Lingard et al 2015.) of student learning outcomes. When schools are  expected to perform on high stakes testing with a  target  in sight this can result in “anti-educational effects” ( Lingard et al 2015). NAPLAN can be seen to take on controversial standpoints with some believing that NAPLAN demonstrates data on the my school website  that is  an “extremely valuable tool for educators and communities to understand what is going on inside classrooms” (Johnston 2016). NAPLAN data gives parents  the ability to see through a “microscope”  which some parents view “ is a right” for them to access ( Colmar Burton 2014). NAPLAN makes schools accountable for their student learning, but this can often generate judgement from stakeholders if the schools results are not to a high level. This extra pressure to and students to perform can generate increased stress. In a study undertaken by  Mathison and Freeman ( 2006) teachers rated a higher level of stress during high stakes testing due to the pressure and clear consequences for failure. Whilst being in the classroom I myself have seen that with NAPLAN upcoming a lot of class content is centred around this,  and the value of authentic learning is somewhat forgotten during this time. Whilst some teachers see stress in NAPLAN others see it as simply ‘another day’ where fun learning is achieved as seen in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-osm97a84A. Similarly, PISA too  is a high stakes test which publishes student results and is beneficial in the sense it provides information about where students are lagging behind in their learning. It uses comparisons to see where in the world education achievement is low. In the context of Australia the PISA test allows for stakeholders in education to see what states are low in learning levels  as seen in this clip, PISA allows for a breakdown of education within Australia. This video demonstrates how PISA relates to Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CFdF_Kk9F4. However, PISA doesn’t seem to actually measure “quality of student performance but the importance of the educational system itself” ( Jakupec et al 2015). PISA adds more of a “overarching global pressure” ( Munro 2016)  therefore the test brings negativity to teacher and student performance when the factors effecting this may not be directly due to the learning interchange itself. Ultimately I believe that whilst these tests are informative they do not constitute true learning and  give a “narrow view of what success means” ( Munro 2016)  in  Australian education.