Week 9: The value of mapping skills and outcomes in terms of assessment.

In order to discuss this topic, it is essential to begin by explaining the value of student’s marks and standards referenced assessment. Teachers need to apply standards referenced assessment to ensure that marks are meaningful. If teachers do not apply standards referenced assessment, students are provided with marks that tell them if they went well in the assessment or not in general terms, it does not tell them how they are going within the course and if they are achieving the outcomes, what they will be assessed on in the HSC. Standards referenced assessment however, which includes teaching the students the content using a variety of strategies and assessing students using a range of assessments, gives meaning to marks. This meaning is developed by comparing student marks to predetermined standards of performance and assessing how well the students reached the outcomes.

The question to be raised here is what do marks mean if they are given to the student without reference to their achievement of the outcomes? What can students take away from their mark if they are not assessed on how well they are reaching the outcomes? This is why it is essential to give marks meaning by comparing them to predetermined standards of performance, so students become aware of what they know and can do in terms of the outcomes, and areas in which they need improvement. This is the also the value of constructive feedback.

Having discussed the importance of assessing students on their achievements and knowledge and understanding of the particular outcomes, it should be clear as to the importance of teaching students the skills and outcomes to be assessed. This is where the value of mapping skills and outcomes comes into play. When developing a program and designing an assessment schedule and assessment task it essential to begin by mapping out the outcomes of the course. This mapping of the outcomes ensures not only that each outcomes is taught over the course, which is mandatory, but also allows the teacher to ensure they are aware of which outcomes need to be taught and where in the course and whether it is to be modeled, demonstrated or practiced. For example, if the first assessment task is assessing particular outcomes, it needs to be ensured that these outcomes have been taught before the assessment task takes place so that students are able to be assessed on their knowledge and understanding of the particular outcomes.

In terms of the option: Genetics in the HSC Biology course, particular outcomes that may be taught in this topic may include H6, H9, H12, H14 and H16 among others. It is important to have mapped out these outcomes prior to planning the particular units teaching and learning strategies and assessment for the unit so that when teaching the unit, teachers can ensure they are focusing on teaching the students the particular outcomes that have been chosen to be covered in that unit of work. As well as this, when it comes to an assessment for the students of the particular unit, the teacher needs to ensure that they are assessing the particular outcomes chosen and mapped after ensuring in that they have taught them during the unit.

As stated above, it is essential to map the skills and outcomes before assessment tasks are planned and any teaching and learning takes place to ensure that the particular outcomes students are being assessed on at a particular point in the course have been taught. Once these outcomes gave been mapped, teachers can then go onto planning a range of assessments that measure different cognitive levels, to produce an accurate image of what they students know and can do in terms of the outcomes.

References:

NSW Board of Studies (2009). Biology Stage 6 Syllabus. Sydney: Board of Studies

Tognolini, J. (2000). A Standards referenced approach to Assessment for the New HSC. Retrieved 24^th September, 2011 from: http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/hsie/assets/assessstage6/jtpaper2.pdf

Week 8: Using STANSW Young Scientist Awards or a similar award system (e.g. CREST or BHP Awards) to assist teachers and students with open-ended investigations and apply holistic marking criteria.

The marking of open ended investigations can be challenging as each project varies in its content and project choice. These differences make it hard to assess using an analytic marking scale which contains a set of criteria for marking an assessment. In this case, applying a holistic marking criteria in which gives a core, rather then an initial variety of scores is the most effective means of marking the open ended projects.

Holistic marking criteria however, may be a less reliable marking system than the analytic marking system as it encourages personal opinion as to which mark is award, judged by questioning which mark it fits into best (Clapham, 2011). This is an issue that came about when we were marking the STANSW Young Scientist awards. Coupled with double marking however, the holistic marking criteria was effective as the differences amongst the projects was able to be taken into consideration and personal judgement to be made and discussed. The holistic marking criteria allowed assessment and judging based on not only the inclusion of the components but the level of complexity as well. This level of complexity is what influenced whether the mark awarded was a middle rage, or the top.

In the option topic of Biotechnology in the Senior Biology Syllabus, an open ended  project could be used for the dot point:  plan and perform a first-hand investigation to test the conditions that influence the rate of enzyme activity. My opinion on the application of holistic marking criteria is hat it is an effective means of marking open ended questions which vary in their content. The marking however involves personal choice and opinion and as a result should always be double marked, possibly even triple marked.

References:

Clapham, Caroline (2011) Principles of assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1398

Board of Studies (2002) Biology Syllabus. NSW Board of Studies.

Week 7 Blog: Web resources for practical activities linked to Syllabus.

With the introduction and implementing of Web 2.01 technologies including interactive websites and video clips, students have round the clock access to fantastic teaching and learning tools at their fingertips whether they are at school or at home.

The website Exploratorium, from the museum of science, art and human perception, has a fantastic teaching and learning tool for students regarding a dissection of a Cows eye (http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cow_eye/step01.html). This would be a great tool to assist with students in the practical task of 9.5: Option-Communication 9.5.2.3: Plan, chose equipment or resources and perform a first hand investigation of a mammalian eye to gather first hand data to relate to functions. The website has a great interactive section on the dissection of a cows eye with short video clips of a cow eye dissection and a running description of each component and how the dissection is completed.

This dissection and commentary is clear and informative, coupled with notes of how the student could complete their own dissection as well as a written description of each component of the eye including structure and function. These sections of the web site are appropriately labeled, ‘see, learn and do’.

As I discovered last year when I found my younger brother ‘goggling’ a video clip from ‘You Tube’ of a mammalian eye dissection (not just for fun but for educational reasons!), many students now make great use of these online interactive tutorials. The students tend to use these tutorials not only as a ‘pre lab’ activity to learn how to do the dissection in class but also as revision for examinations. This is a fantastic feature of the ability of this webpage, to refresh the memory of the students and to help them revise before their exams as due to time restrictions, the students most likely will not have the ability to conduct the dissection again before the exams. I was surprised to find him on the computer watching this video, as this is a relatively new feature that certainly wasn’t as popular amongst students when I was at school. This therefore provides evidence of the effectiveness of the interactive web resources for students teaching and learning.

References:

Board of Studies. (2009). Biology Stage 6 Syllabus. NSW: Board of studies. Retrieved from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/biology-st6-syl-from2010.pdf

Wittman, N. (2011). Cow’s Eye Dssection. Exploratorium: The museum of science, art and human perception. Retrieved 11^th September, 2011 from:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cow_eye/step01.html

Week 6 Blog: Evaluation of Websites for Secondary Source Information

 I chose to look for secondary sources on the Column 3 dot point in 9.3: Blueprint of Life 9.3.5.4 “Process information from secondary sources to describe a methodology used in cloning.” I wanted to emulate the research patterns of a possible year 12 student so I simply typed in “methodology used in cloning” into a Google search and clicked on a website that appeared to have information on the subject I was studying. The website chosen is called Oracle: ThinkQuest Education Australia and has the URL: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118762/method.htm.

On first impressions the website appears to describe 3 methods of Cloning in understandable terms for the students and not with too much information as to overload or shock them. Upon further analysis of the webpage it is clear that there is no author explicitly stated however, there is a title at the top of the page “Projects for students by students”.  This creates some concern as to whether the information is both reliable and accurate (Oracle ThinkQuest Education Australia, 2001).

I then evaluated the website for its reliability and validity using the Berkeley library resource. After clicking “About this site” I was taken to another page which provided information about the purpose of the website. This site had 3 authors listed for the web page, all of which are students themselves. The website then states that: “Over 8,000 websites created by students around the world who have participated in a Think Quest Competition” (Oracle ThinkQuest Education Australia, 2001). The site also has an age range stated for 19 and under. The fact that the information on the page was written by students is concerning as I was unable to find anywhere where it stated that the information was reviewed by other people before being published.

Despite this, it was stated in the “Terms of Use” for the Webpage that ThinkQuest is a “global program that provides interactive project-based learning to students and participants in several countries (“Projects”). The Site is hosted by the Oracle Education Foundation (the “Foundation”), a California nonprofit organisation.” It is clear upon analysis of the URL (.org) that the webpage belongs to an organisation, generally indicating a reliable and reviewed source of information. Despite this possibly bringing confidence to those students that the site is reliable and valid, the information presented may not be of the highest standard for the students to learn from as it is written by other students. This suggests that this web page may possibly be a great starting point to gain an understanding of the topic but they will need to source more information from other reliable and valid sources such as journal articles(Oracle ThinkQuest Education Australia, 2001).  

As well as this, although the webpage states who published the information, it does not go into any credentials of these authors, possibly because they are only students (which is clearly stated).  There was also no links within the text or references to tell the reader where they got their information from. When looking to see what webpage’s link into the website to give an indication of the sites credibility, over 14,000 sites are said to be linked to the site. When looking at this list however, the sites that appear to be linked are Google and Wikipedia, both of which are not reliable sources themselves. This then does not provide much support for the validity and reliability of the site.

Being an organisational site, I would assume that the information is read by someone of higher education before it is published however, I could not see this or anyone recognised for doing this. It is therefore important to ensure that although students may think that organisational sites would always have valid and reliable information this may not always be the case. Although the information may be correct, it may lack the substance that students would find in scientific journals for example.

References:

Board of Studies. (2009). Biology Stage 6 Syllabus. NSW: Board of studies. Retrieved from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/biology-st6-syl-from2010.pdf

Oracle ThinkQuest Education Australia (Tan, Lynette & Krithica). (2001). Cloning - Mirror of Today, Reality of Tomorrow. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118762/method.htm

UC Berkley. (2010). Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask. Retireved from: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html