NCEA+workshops+2011

Level 3 consultation
toc
 * [[file:NCEA Level 3 Public Consultation_Feedback Form_MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS.pdf]]
 * [[file:maths_L3_rationale_july11.docx]]
 * [[file:maths_ach_stds_replacement_and_expiry_info_6aug10.pdf]]
 * [[file:maths_US_changes_july11.pdf]]
 * [[file:maths_AS_changes_july11.pdf]]
 * [[file:maths_L3_CoA_july11.docx]]

NCEA2 Workshops 2011

 * [[file:Workshop 1.zip]]
 * [[file:workshop 2 level 2.zip]]
 * NCEA Workshop 3 - Level 2 - 2011
 * ===NCEA workshop 4 - level 2 - 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=
 * [[file:workshop 2 level 1.zip]]
 * [[file:NCEA1 workshop 4.pptx]]
 * [[file:workshop 4 level 1.docx]]
 * [[file:NCEA1 workshop 4.pptx]]
 * [[file:problem solving cycle.pdf]]
 * [[file:Problem Solving Cycle-explained.pdf]]
 * [[file:ideas from workshop 4.docx]]

Numeracy Unit Standards workshop
link to adult numeracy material including progressions []

Below are the links to materials for the Numeracy Unit standards
 * National external moderation for Literacy and Numeracy unit standards [|http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/literacy-and-numeracy-level-1/national-external-moderation/]
 * Clarifications that apply to all Literacy and Numeracy unit standards [|http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/literacy-and-numeracy-level-1/clarifications-2/all-literacy-and-numeracy-unit-standards/]
 * The clarifications specifically for each standard[| http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/literacy-and-numeracy-level-1/clarifications-2/]
 * A copy of the Assessed Work cover sheet for each standard http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/literacy-and-numeracy-level-1/national-external-moderation/#AWCS
 * A copy of the annotated exemplar(s) for each standard (there is only an Achieved exemplar for 26623 and 26627, but an Achieved and a Not Achieved for 26626). For these, download the pdf [| http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/literacy-and-numeracy-level-1/annotated-exemplars-for-numeracy/]

**Questions arising from workshop 2 **
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. Some schools report difficulty designing alternative pathways courses without the level 2 unit standards. 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. 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). // 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. // 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///] //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">) 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: // //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">- 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. // //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">- 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. // //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">- 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. // //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">So a teacher can indicate what aspect of a student’s work needs to be reviewed but not identify the error. //
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Scholarship following realignment.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Level 2 ‘alternative’ programmes
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Reader-writers
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Moderation
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Reassessment
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Resubmission

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">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. //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">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 // <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">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 //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">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. // <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">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. //<span style="color: #0070c0; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">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. //
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';">Graphs and statistics for 1.10 and 1.12
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif';"> Exemplars

click here for maths posters
[]

**A summary of issues raised at the first workshop**
Exactly what is meant by different methods in the different standards? is for all level one externals (excluding the CAT) in 2011 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 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. boundaries between M and E – levels of thinking still need clarifying 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 at levels one and two - yes this does still exist and can be used 3 week turnaround is expected so if haven’t heard back within 4 weeks, contact NZQA need to set up a system to do this - some areas are managing this through regular meetings > Sample paper @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2010/91027-sam-2010.doc > Sample Schedule @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2010/91027-sas-2010.doc > Student exemplars > :Excellence @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2010/91027-sxp-2010-excellence.pdf > Merit @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2010/91027-sxp-2010-merit.pdf > Achieved @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2010/91027-sxp-2010-achievement.pdf > Not Achieved @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/exams/2010/91027-sxp-2010-notachieved.pdf > Notices around the CAT: @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/about-us/publications/newsletters-and-circulars/assessment-matters/dates-for-level-1-mathematics-common-assessment-task-2011/ > The guidelines are currently under development at NZQA and will be published soon. Moderator 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. Moderator 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.
 * **‘methods'**
 * **The new marking system**
 * **Scaffolding**
 * **Assessment conditions**
 * **assessment criteria**
 * it is good practice to give the assessment criteria** to students - Why would you not do this?
 * **clarifying boundaries**
 * **assessment materials from the web**
 * national mathematics certificate
 * **turnaround time for moderation**
 * **sharing moderated resources**
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">CAT (the common assessment task) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">Apply algebraic procedures in solving problems **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">Standard @http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/achievements/2011/as91027.doc
 * **resubmission**
 * **Teacher selected evidence**