“Teaching is a highly sophisticated profession that calls for a high capability to analyse complex data about students and diagnose the kind of teaching support that they need.” Prof Caldwell. “The test was needed… to see what percentage is not meeting the standard” Prof Geoff Masters
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/education-review-leader-professor-brian-caldwell-claims-teacher-quality-remains-key-to-improving-student-outcomes/story-e6freoof-1226391647715
Author Archives: platoqld
Inquiry needed. Letter, Courier Mail, June 13, 2012
I find the most alarming facts about a large number of aspiring primary school teachers failing numeracy and literacy tests to be that these aspiring teachers had 12 years of Queensland education and then three or four years of university courses before attempting the test.
This is a damning indictment of all levels of Queensland education. Of course, no one will be held responsible. Not the parade of ministers who governed over the dumbing down of Queensland Education, nor the bureaucrats who mandated “touch-feely” assessments that have already been tried and rejected elsewhere.
We need an inquiry into these non-teaching bureaucrats who have led us into this educational morass.
On School Maths
Perhaps you too, have noticed that school graduates no longer know their times-tables, cannot add fractions or do long division? Even at [University name removed], we are finding that the students starting science and engineering degrees are not confident with standard mathematical skills.
Mathematics is the language of the physical world. Science and technology rely on mathematics. Studying mathematics develops sound reasoning, and has been a core discipline pursuing clarity of thought for thousands of years. So why are we presently failing to pass on this gift now?
1. What is wrong?
Maths teachers with over twenty years experience in Queensland, and those teachers who have also taught in other systems, can readily explain what is wrong with our school system:
The reason students do not know their times-tables is because our teachers of maths have been instructed not to have students memorise facts! The reason students do not know how to add fractions, and do not know how to do long division, and do not have confidence in doing mathematical procedures, is because teachers of maths, at all school levels, have been instructed to de-emphasize the standard algorithms, and not to use repetition.
No, it’s not a terrorist giving our teachers these instructions. It’s the recent fashion of educational ideology endorsed by our educational theorists. This ideology is attributed to the 1950s psychologist, Bloom. He regards activities such as remembering and understanding as ‘lower order’ while activities like application and evaluation are considered ‘higher order’.
Bloom’s theory of ‘higher-order-thinking’ may have appeal in some sectors, but it is not suited to mathematics, since mathematics, much like learning to play a musical instrument, requires years of practice and repetition. Following Bloom, our school maths has become instead, like one of those ‘musical appreciation courses’ where students are briefly exposed to a sweeping range of topics, but never really learn themselves, how to play. Would you rather hear your child say “some people can do it” or hear them say “I can do it”?
With our emphasis on so-called ‘higher-order’ thinking, we have neglected the basics. This has been disastrous for learning maths as maths builds upon itself from one year to the next: Calculus relies on advanced algebra, which relies on simple algebra, which relies on standard arithmetic, which relies on knowledge of the times-tables. Only half-knowing maths one year means only one-quarter-knowing it the next year, and only one-eighth-knowing it the year after that, and so on, until you’re having nightmares about arriving at school on the day of the exam, completely unprepared and without any clothes on.
I can’t help but think that Bloom’s followers will not consider maths as ‘higher-order’ until they have turned maths into something it is not. It appears to me that university-level mathematics is still considered a ‘lower-order’ activity according to Bloom’s taxonomy.
Bloom’s ideology also inhibits developing maths skills in our schools through the introduction of written assignments in maths, and the insistence on use of muti-media and technology. These things do not build basic mathematical skills, anywhere nearly as well as doing regular homework and studying for an exam. Written assignments keep everyone busy, and basic maths is left out.
High school Chemistry and Physics are also now being distorted by the inappropriate introduction of very long written assignments.
The imposition of Bloom’s ideology also creates much red tape. The paperwork requirements placed on teachers waste so much time that they are obstructive to students’ learning. For example, when a teacher marks a maths test, he/she is forbidden from the standard practice of awarding a (number) mark for each question and adding these up to get a total score.
Instead, for each question, teachers must award letter grades, over three different categories. The appropriate letter is to be chosen by reading and considering perhaps fifty (50) paragraphs of descriptors. To give you an idea, here is one such paragraph:
“The student work has the following characteristics:
use of problem solving strategies to interpret, clarify and analyze problems to develop responses to routine and non-routine simple tasks in life-related or abstract situations”
So a task, which is done by every teacher, for every student, on every piece of assessment, which should be simple and routine, is in Queensland, not simple at all, but instead a festival of cultural deliberation, After all these ‘festivities’, the mystery of how to combine the letter grades begins. Later on, this combination emerges somehow transfigured, on the report to parents, as one of maybe five uncomfortably-worded sentences. The whole process proceeds officially uncontaminated by numbers.
” How is Johnny going in maths?” remains the question on everyone’s lips.
2. How can we fix it?
This article has briefly indicated how the imposition of Bloom’s ideology on our teachers, has prevented a generation of our youth from gaining maths skills.
‘Education theory’ and Psychology are relatively new and speculative areas of study, purporting frequently changing ideas. In hindsight, we might question why we ever placed an educational theorist into a position of authority over the learning mathematics. It doesn’t seem appropriate to subject a whole population to unproven ideas of a speculative nature. People have been learning mathematics for thousands of years. One would think that traditional approaches would be safer and more reliable.
The key to fixing this problem is to have experts in the actual discipline of study responsible for the curriculum and assessment of that discipline, rather than appointing those who imagine that every kind of learning is the same. When it comes to mathematics, an appropriate panel of experts might consist of very experienced maths teachers, engineers and mathematicians. Physicists, chemists and Economists might also suit. (Caution: degrees called ‘mathematics education’ generally consist of only a little or no mathematics, and a lot of ‘education’.)
However we decide to restructure, and who ever we appoint, the new body governing mathematics in school must be answerable to someone, unlike the Queensland Studies Authority, which was set up as a statutory body, answerable only to itself.
I feel that we should keep state sovereignty over education as much as possible, even though the proposed national curriculum looks better than our present one. My reason for this is, that if or when the national education bodies begin to move down silly paths, then it will be so much more difficult to turn them around. Will the national body appoint people who do mathematics, or people who do education?
To conclude, there is some good news:
We can be sure that our current low performance in maths is not due to any intrinsic or innate stupidity,
- this problem can be solved, and
- it is not an issue of needing to spend more time or money.
A good mathematics course will build a student’s confidence in his or her own ability to reason clearly and correctly. After completion, a student may go on to apply this ability to his or her chosen pursuits in life. Shall we pass on this gift to the next generation?
Senior science is a nightmare
I fully support your actions in bringing attention to the crisis in science education. Senior science is now a nightmare, and science teachers are expected to implement an ideologically driven agenda that has no concern for students.
The assessment regime is “over the top.” English teachers say to us, “we don’t use marks, why should science use them?” What they fail to acknowledge is that they’re assessing processes. Criteria based outcomes may work when looking to see if a student can write an essay; English teachers don’t have exams as well, and neither do they have to assess knowledge in an overt manner. Science teachers have to write complex exams, as well as giving students assignments, EEIs and ERTs. Principals will actually say to science teachers, “English teachers manage with no marks; what’s the big deal?” The lack of intelligent, reflective thought among school leaders is alarming: comparing apples to oranges is no bother when someone says they’re the same fruit.
Radical change occurs in Qld schools because those in charge don’t have to pay for change – teachers do the preparation for change at home – hence it’s cheap. If the QSA had to pay for change to occur, they wouldn’t be so eager to implement extremist views. QSA constantly derides teachers who question them, calling teachers who protest “dinosaurs”. Are the people on the QSA driving change experts on science? They don’t consult science faculties at university.
Dinosaurs became extinct because they couldn’t survive in changed circumstances. Teachers do change; questioning the change doesn’t mean they can’t survive it. Can the QSA survive the new climate? That is the question.
Chemistry teacher of almost 30 years.
QSA system encourages teacher cheating
I have been teaching science in Brisbane for 15 years, and I have worked in the state and independent sectors. A very important issue that I think needs to be raised about the current QSA assessment system is that it allows, and in fact fosters, teacher cheating.
There is tremendous pressure on teachers to ensure student work passes the moderation process without being lowered. Parents love good grades, and nothing looks worse for the school when A students are lowered to A- or B level. Most teachers are very honest, but some I have observed manipulate the system to make sure their work gets through the lottery of the moderation process without being savaged. These teachers are not motivated by self-interest, but actually self-preservation and fear of a moderation process that is byzantine and arbitrary.
There are several strategies I have seen colleagues use:
1. Coaching
In Queensland, teachers write and grade the tests. A common criticism fed back from review panels is that questions are not hard enough- which is used as a reason to move students down. What teachers do is put in very hard questions, but then coach the students in how to answer them. I have even seen teachers give students the test questions in advance to study. Obviously no mention of this is made to the panel. The panel sees really hard questions answered very well- what a great job that teacher must be doing! Unfortunately coaching the answers to these really tough questions is not necessarily building broad understanding of the important concepts.
2. Bait and switch
Another way teachers make their submissions look better is to manipulate the test conditions. This can involve giving more time to the students, or setting the test as “open book” without mentioning this in the submission to panel. I once worked with a teacher who would let the students work on the test, with the help of their textbook and notebook, for as long as they needed to finish it. I even overheard him telling students how to answer the questions. That teacher was the review panel chair for our region. At first I was amazed at the results he was getting out of his students, until I realised how. When I challenged him over the issue he just laughed it off, telling me everybody did it and I was disadvantaging my students by not doing the same.
3. Practice makes perfect
In Queensland, assignments (ERTs and EEIs) play a very important part in determining a students grade. It is impossible to determine how much help students have received from teachers and parents in completing these tasks. I know many teachers heavily edit student drafts in order to improve their standard. This is usually done quite openly, and in fact is usually encouraged by the school. As a result, how much of the final draft is the students own work?
4. Panel magic
For years I could never understand why my submissions would be moved at panel. The advice from year to year would often be contradictory, and I would spend hours trying to figure out how to do it properly. Finally I joined the panel, and suddenly my submissions sailed through without problems!. The review process is not anonymous, and when the other panelists know you they are reluctant to move your students. The review process is very subjective and a schools often get judged more on their reputation than on the student work.
5. The Trojan
A panel submission does not contain a random sample of students. In fact, the samples sent off are selected by the teacher, with the intention that they represent the other students on the same level. What teachers will do is send of a really good example of a VHA, while giving much weaker students the same grade. These less deserving VHAs are never seen by the panel. Teachers, especially at private schools, are under pressure from parents for good grades. This way, borderline students are secretly given “the benefit of the doubt”.
For the first 10 years of my career I worked in an fancy private school. The pressure for good grades was intense, and teachers and schools use every trick in the book to get the best for their students. 5 years ago I made the switch to the state system, and I am often amazed at how honest (to the point of being naive) the teachers are. There is still assessment fraud, but it is much more subtle and ad hoc. The reason for this is primarily because there is less pressure from parents for good grades.
Assessment fraud is real, and there is very little the QSA assessment system does to prevent it. In fact, the combination of fear, pressure, confusion, and lack of oversight means the current system encourages teacher cheating.
There is a very simple, in fact blindingly obvious solution, to the problem. External assessment.
Disillusioned teacher
I have been teaching for 25 years and now refuse to take a Physics class and get sadder and more stressed every year with senior maths.
I wish you every success, for the kids’ sake!
Content is King
Much as been written lately in the press about the success of Asian education: particularly regarding schooling in Singapore and China.
The main emphasis of these reports is that vigour, examinations, pertinent content and well qualified educationists are the keys to quality education.
In contrast education in Qld is hampered by poor or inadequate syllabi, bureaucratic red tape and a stultifying, suffocating approach from the Queensland Studies Authority [QSA].
In many ways this, so called “education body”, acts in direct opposition to creating the standards required for high quality education.
The QSA requirements for examining and recording of students achievements are not precise and are at best opaque. Symbols handed to pupils give a very imprecise account of what they have achieved. Imagine going shopping and the price of an article was given a symbol B. How do you assess what is the true value of the article? Accountants don’t use symbols to decide on the Tax one has to pay – nor does the ATO. Similarly how accurate is it to give a pupil a B? Clearly this system has to be thrown out and replaced with marks and percentages. Of course the QSA will provide some mumbo jumbo edu-babble to justify their approach.
The other main aspect where Asian students have an advantage over the Queensland pupils is that Content is seen as king.
Einstein did not come to his theory of relativity from a vacuum of content. Rather he knew, fully understood the facts and could apply the theory in practical ways. He consequently could make quantum leaps in creativity. The build up of knowledge follows these steps: recall of information, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and finally, creativity coming last. This latter skill is dependent on all of those other formative steps. Instead of ensuring these foundations are laid down, the QSA is playing around with education with the Extended Response Tasks [ERTs] and Extended Experimental Investigations [EEIs] – open-ended tasks in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry which soak up valuable teaching time. While contextual learning has its merits, pupils in Queensland schools are compelled by the QSA to research information and undertake experiments they are not qualified to do. We are talking about 15/16 year olds not 4th year university students. It is putting the cart before the horse. In most cases these [ERTs and EEIs] become defacto or at best camouflaged English assignments; not Mathematical or Scientific applications. The bottom line is that they are of dubious educational value in Maths and Science where assessment criteria set by the QSA emphasise the ability to write well rather than the ability to do physics, chemistry or maths. The sciences are vast areas of knowledge today. Why make it harder for pupils to become efficient and knowledgeable in these difficult subjects? Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel it makes sense to use the wheel to further understanding and creative applications. Hence, the emphasis and teaching time should be geared to honing traditional problem solving skills and act as a springboard for the transfer of knowledge.
Finally, the load on teaching staff under the current authority, is related more to meeting assessment criteria that are unrelated to Maths and Science rather than passing on knowledge which they have gained from years of involvement. It acts as a demotivating enterprise for teachers and has a very negative feedback on pupils, particularly boys. The QSA approach is disguised socialisation and feminisation of maths and science.
Clearly all pupils suffer with this approach, particularly boys and more especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Who wins: the pen pushers in the authority – not the pupils and not our nation.
Merv Myhill
BSc; UEd; BEd; MEd.
Disservice to students
Thanks for organising this important meeting. Fully support your initiatives and will be glad to attend.
I’m currently a Senor Physics teacher but have taught Senior Maths A, B, C etc. and Physics for over 30 years.
I strongly feel like so many of my colleagues that we are doing our students a considerable disservice currently. I know of one excellent (one of the best teachers and brightest minds ) Physics teacher who refuses to teach Physics under the present syllabus for similar reasons. We need teachers like him to return to Physics.
Why EEIs and ERTs are not good assessment methods in chemistry
The school year is crowded. Public holidays, sports days, reporting deadlines, co-curricular activities, QCS practice, pastoral care initiatives, together with shortened lessons for school assemblies and ceremonies all cut into the time available for teaching and learning. It often seems that there is barely time available for the minimum 55 hours per semester required by the Senior Science syllabi. This is especially true of the second semester in year 12 when Seniors finish early in order to fit in with state reporting deadlines. Emphasis on long duration non-test assessment such as EEIs and ERTs mean there is less time available for basic concepts and skills. There is a danger that students will not develop a good grounding in writing formulas, balancing equations, stoichiometry, periodicity, and structure and bonding.
If the recommended minimum time of four weeks for an EEI is adhered to then available time for teaching other topic in Chemistry is significantly reduced. ERTs have a similar effect on student learning although the requirement of two weeks minimum class time is less. Having tutored students from schools where the assessment is divided evenly between test and non- test I can say that their grasp of fundamental concepts definitely seems weaker than students from schools where the emphasis is on exams. For this reason I have always advocated a minimalist approach to non – test assessment in schools where I’ve taught Chemistry. I believe this leads to enhanced student outcomes. In my experience students suffer less stress and learn more Chemistry when they are not asked to spend many hours constructing EEI reports and ERT essays. Evidence that supports my belief are the high proportion of my Chemistry students who achieve VHA’s (usually over 20% of the cohort) and comments from former students that their high-school Chemistry gave them an excellent grounding for first year University Chem.
As Science teachers we will always face the dilemma of what aspects of our subject to continue to teach as being ‘fundamental’ to its understanding and which aspects have to be left for later specialised studies. I do not believe emphasising EEIs and ERTs in a Chemistry teaching program is a solution to this.Too often students have to investigate concepts in Chemistry or Physics that are beyond the scope of high-school Science or are trying to collect data of detail or precision beyond the limits of school laboratory equipment. Good design of EEI tasks will avoid this; however I have seen students from other schools struggling with concepts such as the detailed Chemistry of marine artefact restoration or of the Physics of resonance of wine glasses. The danger of poor design of ERT or EEI tasks is that students are faced with the predicament of either dealing with a topic in a superficial way or of going into depth beyond their understanding and quoting formulas and research articles that neither they nor their teacher can understand. The net result of such tasks is that students spend a lot of time learning about a very narrow aspect of Chemistry or Physics and that they may not even understand what they are investigating. They would gain a far better understanding of Chemistry or Physics by spending the time on broader, more guided studies.
Lastly, an ironic consequence of EEIs is that even though they are an ‘experimental’ investigation, they can result in limiting the amount of practical laboratory manipulative skills a student will experience during the two year course. A term spent on spectroscopy or wine-making means less time for titration or gravimetric analysis. In contrast, a regular program of small experiments mean students can incrementally build their lab skills over the two year course.
In summary, I believe that many Chemistry work programs have too much emphasis on non-test assessment. Many EEIs and ERTs are poorly designed and cause undue stress to students while limiting their overall understanding of Chemistry. While formulating hypotheses, designing experiments, researching literature, and learning practical skills are essential aspects of a high-school Chemistry course, there are much better ways to cover these than by the current QSA emphasis on EEIs and ERTs.
Fizz-iks
I am a Curriculum Coordinator/Physics/Maths teacher at a private secondary school. I happened to hear your interview on 612AM Brisbane radio today and I could not agree with you more about the misfortunate direction that physics education in Queensland has taken in the last decade. In fact after listening intently to your opinions, I spent this morning marking physics ERTs (extended response tasks) and I totally agree with your assessment of such tasks as being difficult, confusing and inaccurate to score while also seriously lacking in mathematical rigour.
At the risk of sounding very jaded I will give you some specifics. After fifteen years of teaching senior physics I had temporarily abandoned the idea in disgust five years ago in the hope that it may turn a corner. As I return to my first love of teaching I find it still involves far too much ‘sandpit science’ (let’s get in and play!!) although I have seen some marginal improvements to the standard I had left. Early in our first term this year I taught a Cosmology/Space unit for Yr12 that required me to teach no mathematics at all and I was actually directed to give the students no actual specific guidance throughout the entire task. I was supposed to sit back and witness students struggling with understanding the mystery of dark energy as explained on a Youtube clip and then watch on while they sought the guidance of Google for higher understanding. Some years ago my cosmology unit involved hands on work with telescopes during night sessions and mathematical processes for measuring stellar distances based on light spectra. Now we don’t even look at a picture of a telescope! This type of laptop research activity has literally replaced weeks of teaching time in the classroom over the two senior years of science. I have a brother at another local state high school who is also dismayed with senior school physics. It would seem that the mystery of dark energy pales into insignificance alongside the mystery of how one can gain approval from panel members for samples of Year 11 and 12 student assessment pieces. Knowing how to jump through the hoops for panel reviews is all so ill defined.
I have some regular contact with a state level QSA official for Physics and when I hear this new direction being explained and justified I can only think of the story of the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ as some others seem to voice approval. Are there any significant numbers of experienced physics teachers actually looking on with approval at this new “Fizz-iks”? As we lose experienced hands, I am worried that younger teachers will know no better and end up assuming physics is just a ‘research and critique’ subject with the minimal levels of mathematical application present being considered as a reasonable standard. I could say more but I’m sure you have heard much of the same from other disgruntled academics from around our great state.
As was mentioned on the radio, I would welcome attending an evening meeting on this important topic in Brisbane once you have decided on a venue and a time. Thank you for your service to the future of education in Queensland in challenging this worrying issue.