Resources for Achievement standards


Level 3 consultation


NCEA2 Workshops 2011




Other network resources:
Mason, O. M. & Trend, P.T., (1991) Discrete Mathematics. Bookland Pty Ltd, Perth WA.

Mottershead,L. (1999) MathsWorks 10 Blackline Masters. McGraw-Hill Australia

NCEA1 Workshops 2011


Numeracy Unit Standards workshop

link to adult numeracy material including progressions
http://literacyandnumeracyforadults.com/

Below are the links to materials for the Numeracy Unit standards

Questions arising from workshop 2

  • Scholarship following realignment.
How will subjects be defined for scholarship? Different AOs and ASs will be covered in schools with increasing flexibility in terms of course design so teachers want to know what needs to be covered to prepare students for scholarship. Suggestion of retaining two separate subjects (calculus, statistics) as well as designing a third subject that can be combination of these two.
  • Level 2 ‘alternative’ programmes
Some schools report difficulty designing alternative pathways courses without the level 2 unit standards.
  • Reader-writers
Question about the reading out of assessment tasks. This is ok without any restriction, yet students who have reader-writers in external assessments have to satisfy criteria, etc. Questions arose about a lack of consistency.
  • Moderation
Suggestion that moderators could just focus on the new standards. Some schools suggest there is no need to keep moderating level 2 and 3, and that would enable more work to be done on the new level 1’s.
The standards that are moderated are determined by the SRM’s (School Relationship Managers) so we are then required to moderate the standards that they select. This year, if the selected standards included ‘old’ level 1 Achievement Standards (90149, 90150, 90193), schools were able to ask to have the ‘old’ standard replaced with a ‘new’ one and based on what we are seeing this has happened in some cases. Schools also have the option of getting feedback on student work by using OTSE (Optional Teacher Selected Evidence).
  • Reassessment
Question about why reassessments are not moderated.
Moderators have been instructed to not moderate reassessments. They only moderate the task that was used to collect the initial evidence.
  • Resubmission
Teachers would like clarification about resubmission as there seems to be a lack of consistency between subjects. The definition of what is small enough to be dealt with by resubmission is also interpreted differently by different maths teachers.
The information on Assessment Opportunities for Internal Assessment (//http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/ncea-rules-and-procedures/secondary-schools/5-2/5-4-assessment-opportunities-for-internal-assessment///) which is part of the NCEA rules and procedures needs to be referenced for information on resubmission. Some key points from our February 10 newsletter are:
- A resubmission can be offered when students have made mistakes which they should be capable of discovering and correcting on their own. By definition the problem should be capable of rapid resolution. In other cases, a further assessment opportunity may be more appropriate.
- If a resubmission is offered, it must take place before the teacher gives any feedback to the whole class (or any student) on the work done. If more teaching has occurred after the first assessment opportunity, resubmission is not possible.
- Feedback to students prior to a resubmission must be general and not compromise the authenticity of the student's work and responses. Teachers should give only general advice. A student may be told, for example, "you need to fix your graph" or "there are problems with your calculations". The actual error in the graph or the response to a question cannot be identified for the student.
So a teacher can indicate what aspect of a student’s work needs to be reviewed but not identify the error.

Questions about whether teachers can write on scripts eg ticks, crosses, circles when marking. One school had received message from moderator that this was not ok as it meant paper couldn’t be used for resubmission. But this was not a widely known message – in fact, most teachers thought that moderators do not comment about resubmission issues.
Correct moderators don’t comment on resubmission. The comment may have been made to indicate that if the marking included specific feedback and identification of errors it could compromise the integrity of a possible resubmission
  • Graphs and statistics for 1.10 and 1.12
Is it Ok for the teacher to give out prepared summary statistics and graphs once the question is posed...so they are working from correct graphs/statistics? NO! If doing the census@school task, they wouldn't need to be in the lab for the whole time, just long enough to generate their graphs which takes 5-10 mins, they can be printed and then hand written analysis done. Alternatively the students could generate their graphs one at a time at the teachers computer over a lesson or two and then do the write up at a later stage
Moderators would expect students to obtain the graphs and statistics for themselves and would see this as being consistent with the requirements of the standard that indicates that students need to use each component of the statistical enquiry cycle.
  • Exemplars
Question about the level 2 coordinate geometry excellence exemplar discussed in the BP workshop. One student was not given E because their communication was not of excellent standard. Teachers felt this student had not included an ‘=’ . Interestingly, many teachers judged this to be unnecessary to convey the information.
This question relates to Student 1 in the exemplar material - this student's work lacked a clear explanation that the strategy included a comparison of gradients to conclude the lines were parallel.

click here for maths posters

http://www.ams.org/samplings/mathmoments/browsemoments

A summary of issues raised at the first workshop

  • ‘methods'
Exactly what is meant by different methods in the different standards?
  • The new marking system
is for all level one externals (excluding the CAT) in 2011
  • Scaffolding
what is OK? eg class discussion, talking through the task, reading out the task?
Schools need to know about not using ‘fill the gaps’, eg Trig 1.7 – answer sheet with labelled right angle triangles on it
Teachers are concerned at difficulty of students accessing tasks and at poor quality of some of the tasks on the web
  • Assessment conditions
Is open book ok? Yes it has always been ok – the task will determine the authenticity of using available resources. For instance if students are doing a project you would expect them to have access to all the necessary back ground material.
  • assessment criteria
it is good practice to give the assessment criteria to students - Why would you not do this?
  • clarifying boundaries
boundaries between M and E – levels of thinking still need clarifying
  • assessment materials from the web
can be uses as they are but schools may need to adapt for context relevant to their students. Authenticity issues are up to individual schools. Parallel tasks are encouraged as part of teaching/learning process - assessment tasks should not be a surprise to students but tasks obviously should not parallel too closely to the task used for assessment.
  • national mathematics certificate
national mathematics certificate at levels one and two - yes this does still exist and can be used
  • turnaround time for moderation
3 week turnaround is expected so if haven’t heard back within 4 weeks, contact NZQA
  • sharing moderated resources
need to set up a system to do this - some areas are managing this through regular meetings
  • CAT (the common assessment task)
Apply algebraic procedures in solving problems
Moderator newsletter February 2010 http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/mathematics/moderator-s-newsletter/february-2010/
A resubmission should be limited to specific aspects of the assessment and no more than one resubmission should be provided. A resubmission can be offered when students have made mistakes which they should be capable of discovering and correcting on their own. By definition the problem should be capable of rapid resolution. In other cases, a further assessment opportunity may be more appropriate. If a resubmission is offered, it must take place before the teacher gives any feedback to the whole class (or any student) on the work done. If more teaching has occurred after the first assessment opportunity, resubmission is not possible.
Feedback to students prior to a resubmission must be general and not compromise the authenticity of the student's work and responses. Teachers should give only general advice. A student may be told, for example, "you need to fix your graph" or "there are problems with your calculations". The actual error in the graph or the response to a question cannot be identified for the student.
  • Teacher selected evidence
Moderator newsletter February 2010 http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/mathematics/moderator-s-newsletter/february-2010/
Teachers may send up to ten samples per standard per year. The sample may be sent in for feedback at any time of the year, not just at the time of the school submission date. There is no specific turnaround time for these samples as this will depend on moderator workloads. A copy of the assessment tasks and schedule needs to be included with the teacher selected material.
Specific questions can be asked about the samples to help further define the grade boundaries and clarify issues in the assessment of that work. The feedback provided from the moderator does not form part of the official moderation report and is designed to be more developmental in nature. Teachers are encouraged to take this opportunity to engage in professional dialogue to further define the grade boundaries.