Category Archives: FrontPage

Concerns on Assessment

Posted on by

My major concerns on assessment centre around the following:

1. Despite stated word limits for tasks, the limits refer only to a relatively small proportion of the total assignment – this is particularly true in the EEI

2. The ability to communicate clearly and precisely underpins success instead of the concepts, principles and applications taking primacy. Ie, for two students with the same chemistry ability, the one with the greater facility with communication will be assessed at a higher level.

3. Criterion-based assessment is still a blunt-edged tool. Despite increased consistency among panellists, differing interpretations still exist on the features and characteristics of work required to meet specific standards.

4. The EEI is a flawed piece of assessment – it is not possible, within the time and resource constraints imposed, to design and conduct an investigation of the sophistication originally intended by the syllabus documents.

5. The learning is the assessment. With the extended tasks, students have no time to incorporate complex concepts into their cognitive framework before they are assessed on them. The time for reflection and practising until processes are ingrained has gone.

6. The work load on both teachers and students is overwhelming. I know, even with my experience, that it takes approximately one hour to assess to best of my ability a single student’s EEI.

All of this is not to suggest that our students do not have valuable skill sets when they exit secondary school; it purely that the skill set is different. Knowledge of details and the ability to undertake routine applications has been diminished, but the ability to analyse and evaluate have been enhanced.

Key to improving student outcomes

Posted on by

“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

Inquiry needed. Letter, Courier Mail, June 13, 2012

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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,

  1. this problem can be solved,  and
  2. 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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

Content is King

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.