People Lobbying to Uphold the Teaching of Outcomes
(OBE O.B.E. Outcomes Levels Science)
PLEASE FORWARD THIS WEB SITE ON TO FRIENDS
Short articles/supportive comments always welcome.
NOTE: In keeping with the professional standards of teaching, PLUTO does not publish comments about individual teachers. Comments about educational processes and personal educational experiences are welcome. Material is only published with each author's permission.
That's the essence of
an Outcomes Approach:
Good teaching with a fairer assessment system.
Good teaching with a fairer assessment system.
- Outcomes
and Course of Study (27/5/06)
- What is OBE? (22/4/06)
- Levels
In Science Are Easy (22/4/06)
- The Swinging Sixties (23/9)
- A Message to New Teachers (29/8)
- OBE in Singapore (3/3/06)
- Hung, Drawn and Quartiled (27/8)
- Older teachers (25/8)
- Attracting Students to Physics
(21/10)
- Treating
Students as Equals (23/8)
- Hallux
Quotient (HQ) (19/8)
- Outcomes and Teaching Methods
- Complex
Reports
- Preparing
for
Failure in the Real World (17/8)
- Outcomes and the 3 Rs
- Physics
- At Last (20/10)
- The
Experience of One School (16/8)
- Should We Change?
- OBE and All That Jazz
- Universities Model Outcomes
- Music Lessons - a Lesson in Outcomes
- Extracts From Various Emails of Support
- Choice of Schools (Response 1)
- The Dumbing Down Effect of Grades
- Quote of the Year
- Researchers (Response3)
- A Chemistry Course Based on Achieving Outcomes
- How
Teachers Teach
- BNG Grades
- School Reports
- Outcomes in Year 11 and 12 (Response2)
Dear Mr Rennie
Thank you for your email dated 17 May 2006 regarding a recent interview by David Axworthy, A/CEO of the Curriculum Council, on ABC’s Stateline program.
The interview you mention in your email was arranged as part of an ongoing effort by the Curriculum Council to create opportunities for a more balanced debate about the new courses. It would seem that sensationalist and often inaccurate reporting in state newspapers has lead to much concern amongst parents and students. It is our priority to ensure the public are equipped with accurate information about the Curriculum Framework and new courses so as to better inform their judgements about the new system.
The Curriculum Council appreciates your ongoing support for the new system and WACE courses.
Yours sincerely
Curriculum Council
31/5/06
Dear Richard
Thank you for copying the Curriculum Council in your email to the History Council of WA.
We appreciate your ongoing support and enthusiasm for outcomes and standards education and the new WACE courses. It is clear that your willingness to engage with the new system and embrace educational change is reflective of your genuine concern for the best interests of students. Furthermore, your constructive and vocal support is truly admirable.
We hope that yourself and PLUTO supporters continue to offer a voice of reason amongst inaccurate and misleading reports.
Regards,
Curriculum Council
24/5/06
As a relatively new teacher and administrator (7th year) and someone who believes in Outcomes - yet uses an eclectic mix of both old strategies (yeh - times tables to mention one) and new pedagogy - Multi intelligence (student negotiation and responsibility feature highly along with direct instruction and teacher facilitation) - I was rapt to find PLUTO a site that is succinct in its message.
Outcomes is such a separate issue to the reporting, the implementation process issues and all other issues that either Union members or older teachers have.
What has disappointed but not surprised me is the negativity from the minority, and I believe it gets back to a strong fear of change - which of course we all face as we get older and more set in our ways.
Getting the message out about outcomes is also not helped by some media groups - having said that, as I talk to more and more parents, rest assured that many of them are not confused about OBE - rather they are concerned that their child's education will be negatively impacted upon unless we are allowed to get on with implementation and teaching.
Our professionality as a profession is under attack because of unfounded fears and unprofessional behaviour - given that we are educating a future nation of workers and intellectuals, we need to stand up and be counted, so that our side is also heard.
Keep up the great work - let me know if there is ever a public meeting - I'm more than ready to stand up for the future education of this country.
Liz Efthyvoulos
Deputy Principal
Bicton Primary
25/5/06
Hi,
I've just stumbled across the PLUTO website. Thanks for putting it together.
I'm a mature age student currently doing the Grad DipEd in the Middle Years of Schooling at ECU Joondalup. With the furore going on in the press I'm starting to wonder what I've got myself into, so a website such as yours is something of a relief.
Thanks again,
Gary Dixon
(29/8)
I am amazed at the number of
hysterical teachers out there who feel
that they must put down OBE especially before they have even trialled
it!
By now many teachers would have gone through changes that the system has pushed us through in their career AND they came out of it liking some parts and not enjoying others.
A change doesn't mean ‘chucking the baby out with the water’! In fact if you look at OBE closely you will see that content and teaching methods have not altered! What has changed is a shift in focus, which makes student progress even more explicit, and understandable.
The system has never addressed the notion of what to do with ‘failure’ and this eliminates that problem by looking at what students can do rather than what they cannot. It takes the guess work out of what we are marking for and the disparities that have occurred due to teacher judgements in the past.
I think it is unfair to resist a system by trying to subvert it with negative comments and ABC online ‘quizzes’ on how you would rate it. The fact is it is here and rather than avoid it we should be working on it. It is not that hard really! I have got my head around it and find that it is fine.
J Dalgleish
Teacher (26/8)
By now many teachers would have gone through changes that the system has pushed us through in their career AND they came out of it liking some parts and not enjoying others.
A change doesn't mean ‘chucking the baby out with the water’! In fact if you look at OBE closely you will see that content and teaching methods have not altered! What has changed is a shift in focus, which makes student progress even more explicit, and understandable.
The system has never addressed the notion of what to do with ‘failure’ and this eliminates that problem by looking at what students can do rather than what they cannot. It takes the guess work out of what we are marking for and the disparities that have occurred due to teacher judgements in the past.
I think it is unfair to resist a system by trying to subvert it with negative comments and ABC online ‘quizzes’ on how you would rate it. The fact is it is here and rather than avoid it we should be working on it. It is not that hard really! I have got my head around it and find that it is fine.
J Dalgleish
Teacher (26/8)
Thanks very much for the cartoon. I've also thought that it would be interesting to grade babies (say all babies born 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005) in July 2005 based on who can eat solids, crawl, walk, say one or two words, etc. Some would be walking but some wouldn't be able to hold their heads up. We would be grading Year 1s born up to 12 months apart.
My son didn't walk until he was 15 months (probably would have got an E) but is now one of the fittest and most physically able kids in his year
(Aug 23) Name withheld by request
I was very happy to have had this forwarded on and most impressed with the logical and easy to understand argument that you presented. Thank you!! and I trust all is well with you.
(July 29)
Just like to say a big thank you for starting up this website for those of us who want to continue with the journey we started into Outcomes Education 7 years ago.
(Aug 3)
Well done with the PLUTO site. You raise some great and important points. Your quote about '...watching teachers teach', may I use it tonight when I talk to the parents. (Deputy Principal, Independent School)
(Aug 1)
You have created a tremendously useful web-site which I will promote wherever I can.
Thanks for your continuing contribution to education in WA.
Congratulations on this very
important initiative. The press coverage to date under the banner of
OBE has been worrying. Lots of half truths and misconceptions have been
evident from within and without the profession. I have written to the
papers and the minister about my concerns. History shows us that change
in Education takes some twenty to thirty years. When I first graduated
as a teacher in 1973 in Scotland I came out of College with a
constructivist philosophy yet found myself in a system that did little
to support this approach to teaching and learning. I have witnessed the
evolution and I have been involved in the changes in the classroom
which have gradually taken place. At last we are some way to
implementing an Education system for the 21st Century which serves our
students, every individual student.
Keep up the Good work. I’ll order a T shirt when they are available.
Regards
Christine Lee (name used with permission)
Teacher
(Aug 8)
Keep up the Good work. I’ll order a T shirt when they are available.
Regards
Christine Lee (name used with permission)
Teacher
(Aug 8)
If you find anything of use to your site, feel free to publish with my name and school. I have forwarded the PLUTO information to all staff.
Best wishes
Alison Woodman (Name used with permission)
Principal
Merredin Senior High School.
(Aug 8)
I can't tell you how pleased I am that this site has been set up by a Science teacher. I know many who are more than happy and comfortable teaching and assessing using outcomes. I was starting to worry that the contributors to PLATO had somehow infected those of you who are just 'getting on with it', by the looks of things.
I have found that since the recent meeting between the Principals and the Minister, the level of worthwhile debate appearing on the PLATO site has decreased substantially. I find it saddening to learn that such negativity is alive and well. I continue to be amazed that opponents of outcomes insist that grades are accurate and explicit indicators of what students can do. I also find it really odd that they are outraged at the idea of an outcomes environment precluding students from failing. Since when were we in the business of actively 'wanting' failure???
I hope this isn't just my hobby horse. What is your opinion?
Wendy Cody (Name used with permission)
Head of Department, English
Padbury SHS
I was delighted to see that you have lost none of your enthusiasm for high standard educational debate...what a breath of fresh air. Thanks heaps for your info.
(Aug 3)
Thank you so much for your enterprise and initiative in creating the PLUTO website. Just yesterday, I sent an email to a colleague suggesting that it was about time that educators banded together to support OBE. So - good on you and you can count on my support and the numerous teachers (in my school) who do believe that what we are currently doing in our classrooms is in the interests of producing informed, critical and enquiring young people. I'm sure that we'll be hearing more from you and others like you. I'm now going to send a broadcast email to all staff about your site. Regards. (Dean of Studies, Independent School)
(Aug 3)
"I absolutely loved reading this!!! It DOES WORK in SCIENCE!!!!
(Aug 4)
(Aug 4)
I was wondering if you would give me permission to publish your article on Outcomes Based Education from your website in our school newsletter. (Principal, Government High School)
(Aug 2)
I applaud you for doing this and agree wholeheartedly with your comments! I hope you are going to the "media" with this!
(Aug 3)
(Aug 5) Officer D.E.T.
Well done and thanks.
(Aug 10)
Thank you for giving us a forum and some reasoned arguments to counter the PLATO/media-induced and ill-informed frenzy. I have been appalled at the impact they have had in inducing parental anxiety. Keep up the good work!
Mary-Jane Whitehead
Manager, Instrumental Music Service
(Aug 9)
Congratulations - a welcome
addition to the debate.
(Aug 8) (Principal - Senior High School)
(Aug 8) (Principal - Senior High School)
Thank you for establishing
P.L.U.T.O. I'm a Maths teachers
who is utterly sick of the outright lies and misinformation published.
Thank you for this forum. Anything I can do to help, let me know. (Aug 18)
Noemi Reynolds
Maths Teacher, Year Co-ordinator
John Curtin College of the Ar
Thank you for this forum. Anything I can do to help, let me know. (Aug 18)
Noemi Reynolds
Maths Teacher, Year Co-ordinator
John Curtin College of the Ar
Outcomes is a method of assessment. It is a way the students are taught and assessed, and how their achievement is reported to the students and their parents. It is not the course. It is a method.
A Course of Study is a description of what has to be learned and assessed. A course may use an outcomes approach to the assessment of the students.
There are many different structures that can be used for a Course of Study. New South Wales might use a different course structure to that used in W.A. It may even specify a different numbers of outcomes to be assessed.
Yet both can be using an outcomes approach to assessment.
It is interesting that some of the most vocal critics of OBE do not understand an outcomes approach to education.
"I mean that is gobbledegook. What does (OBE) mean?" - John Howard (The West Australian April 21, 2006)
******
At school we have to get
rid of the idea that for a subject (say History) there is ONLY ONE
COURSE set at only one level of difficulty.We must have courses that allow the brighter students progress on to higher levels of achievement, and that provide weaker students with levels of difficulty at which they too can be successful.
We must measure what each student has achieved, not what the teacher teaches.
LEVELS IN SCIENCE
In Science the levels of outcomes achieved are easy to determine. There are eight generic levels. These can be applied to any area of science content.
Take for example ATOMIC STRUCTURE.
Level 1 (AWARENESS) is achieved when students are aware of matter in all its forms. Basically plasticene, water and rocks. Lower Primary school students achieve this.
Level 2 (DESCRIBING) is achieved when students can describe matter; like the hardness and colour of plasticene, describe water and milk.
Level 3 (PATTERNS) is achieved when students can recognize patterns in samples of matter. They can classify various samples of plasticene according to colour. They can classify solids, liquids and gases.
Level 4 (COMPARING) is achieved when students can describe relationships and interactions and processes. They can measure melting points, density of different samples of matter, and describe chemical reactions. This is typical of Year 8 students, but some will not reach this level until later years.
Level 5 (MODELS) is achieved when students can use the molecular kinetic model to explain properties of matter such as phases, melting, boiling, pressure. This is the first level of abstract thinking. Many students will reach this level in Year 9. Some Year 8s will already be there, but some year 9s will not cope with models until much later.
Level 6 (QUANTITATIVE) is achieved when students can use the atomic model quantitatively to explain bonding and the formation of ions, atomic number and the periodic table. This is typical of top year 9 and most year 10 students.
Level 7 (THEORIES) is achieved when students can use atomic theory to explain line emission spectra, the photoelectric effect, and the photon theory of light. These are higher level theories that only the more advanced students can cope with – usually upper school Physics students.
Level 8 (COMPLEX SYSTEMS) is achieved when students can explain complex systems and interactions, such as mass loss and binding energy, nuclear energy, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Mechanics, etc.
If a students cannot achieve Levels 7 or 8 they probably would NOT be able to handle Science at University. To do Physics at university they should really show that they can handle Level 8 concepts.
******
The above generic levels of science understandings can be readily
applied
to other areas of science content.Here are the same generic levels applied to
Scientific Literacy.
Levels for Atomic Structure
Levels for Colour
Levels for Forces
Levels for Plant Nutrition
Levels for Sound Waves
Levels for Voltage-Current
The Swinging Sixties
Grades were introduced into schools in the 1960s.
Also introduced in the 1960s were:
Compact Cassettes
Concorde aeroplanes
Videotape recordings
Polaroid instant colour photographs
Super 8 movie film
Flash Cubes for cameras
Cars with fins.
Concorde aeroplanes
Videotape recordings
Polaroid instant colour photographs
Super 8 movie film
Flash Cubes for cameras
Cars with fins.
Like all of these things grades are 60s technology.
OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES AND
POSSIBILITIES
Associate Professor Roy Killen
Bundaberg Curriculum Exchange - Outcomes Based Education
Outcomes In Action _ Queensland
Studies Authority
Developing learning outcomes -
University of New South WalesOutcomes-Based Education at The University of Western Australia
Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law
O.B.E. in Singapore
(9th December 2005)
GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM IN SINGAPORE
extract from http://www.moe.gov.sg/gifted/goals.htm
The Educational Factor
It has been recognized that children have varying abilities and it is not a sound practice to give every child the same education and expect him/her to move at the same pace as his/her peers. The intellectually gifted need a high degree of mental stimulation. This need may not be met in the mainstream classroom and the gifted child may become mediocre, indifferent or disruptive in class.
PLUTOs COMMENT: The above paragraph is pure OUTCOMES BASED EDUCATION philosophy
Extract from Singapore's LOWER SECONDARY MATHEMATICS SYLLABUS - INTRODUCTION
Part B gives the syllabus content for each level. Care has been taken to ensure that there is continuity from the primary to the secondary level. In the syllabus, the spiral approach is adopted to ensure that each topic is covered at appropriate levels in increasing depth to enable pupils to consolidate the concepts and skills learnt and to further develop them. All topics come with ‘Learning Outcomes’ to enable teachers to monitor pupils' progress. The ‘Remarks’ column provides teachers with guidance in interpreting the syllabus.
A Message to New Teachers
Do not be put off when you hear all the negative public pronouncements about Outcomes. You WILL have a great career.
Teaching is always a challenge. And you are coming in at an exciting time.
Changes in the educational system always cause some stress. But changes also invigorate.
You have a much 'cleaner slate' than most, and have great potential to absorb new ideas and put them into action. The challenge is to see how you can make things work in your class room.
There is such a huge scope in our schools for creativity. Think outside the subject areas. Treat the students as individuals, and emphasize what they achieve, not what they fail to achieve.
The Experience of
One School
The future for Outcomes Focused Education was flagged by the Department of Education back in the late 1990’s. At Merredin SHS we thought that since it was coming, why not take it on as the major component of our School Development Plan. We did, and this allowed staff to experiment with Outcomes (previously known as Strands).
We opened up The Curriculum Framework and went through it, realizing that a fundamental pedagogical shift is required for this to be able to work. The focus became not on what we are teaching, but on how students learn and how they demonstrate what they have learned. Students work is levelled against the Outcomes and it is made clear to them how to move to the next level. OFE is student rather than teacher centred.
We continued to experiment and modify our teaching, learning, assessing and reporting. We did this slowly, bit by bit, looking at how to give students the best opportunities and strategies to demonstrate their learning. We thought we should do this seeing as the Department told us that implementation of the Curriculum Framework K to 10 was expected to occur by 2003. This went to 2004, and then, “whenever”... It seemed that schools state-wide were having a hard time getting their acts together despite the Getting Started support documentation, provisions for Professional Development and assistance offered from District Offices.
As a result of placing one foot in front of the other since the late 90’s our school now has all Learning Areas teaching, assessing and reporting in OFE. My Learning Area has done so for the last four years. Our school also decided that it would be beneficial to all to keep parents and the wider community informed of our progress and development. We took them on the journey with us.
We and our community are now ready to continue with this process by beginning the new Courses of Study in upper school as developed by the Curriculum Council in consultation with teachers and other educators. Why? Because they dovetail as a continuation of the Curriculum Framework. The new courses provide students with the scope to enable them to pursue more realistic and versatile further education and career paths. We have all had more than five years to prepare for this.
Paul Bandurski
Head of Learning Area
Arts
Merredin SHS
The future for Outcomes Focused Education was flagged by the Department of Education back in the late 1990’s. At Merredin SHS we thought that since it was coming, why not take it on as the major component of our School Development Plan. We did, and this allowed staff to experiment with Outcomes (previously known as Strands).
We opened up The Curriculum Framework and went through it, realizing that a fundamental pedagogical shift is required for this to be able to work. The focus became not on what we are teaching, but on how students learn and how they demonstrate what they have learned. Students work is levelled against the Outcomes and it is made clear to them how to move to the next level. OFE is student rather than teacher centred.
We continued to experiment and modify our teaching, learning, assessing and reporting. We did this slowly, bit by bit, looking at how to give students the best opportunities and strategies to demonstrate their learning. We thought we should do this seeing as the Department told us that implementation of the Curriculum Framework K to 10 was expected to occur by 2003. This went to 2004, and then, “whenever”... It seemed that schools state-wide were having a hard time getting their acts together despite the Getting Started support documentation, provisions for Professional Development and assistance offered from District Offices.
As a result of placing one foot in front of the other since the late 90’s our school now has all Learning Areas teaching, assessing and reporting in OFE. My Learning Area has done so for the last four years. Our school also decided that it would be beneficial to all to keep parents and the wider community informed of our progress and development. We took them on the journey with us.
We and our community are now ready to continue with this process by beginning the new Courses of Study in upper school as developed by the Curriculum Council in consultation with teachers and other educators. Why? Because they dovetail as a continuation of the Curriculum Framework. The new courses provide students with the scope to enable them to pursue more realistic and versatile further education and career paths. We have all had more than five years to prepare for this.
Paul Bandurski
Head of Learning Area
Arts
Merredin SHS
Older Teachers
"Get with it, older teachers told" - The Australian Aug 25, 2005
BUT:
Older teachers have the time to get an overview. They can look at the broad picture. They can devote the extra time needed to the creative side of teaching. They can hold an historical perspective to changes in the education system.
Older teachers carry the ethos of the schools from one generation to the next generation. They provide continuity in this fast changing world. They can provide stability
Older teachers can display leadership whenever dramatic changes are occurring. They can mentor the younger teacher.
Older teachers have seen it all before. They have seen resistance to change and know that it is a natural occurrence in any education system. But older teachers also know of the revitalization caused by new challenges.
Hung, Drawn and Quartiled
The concept of ranking a given 'age group' of students, and giving them each a grade or a quartile position is a rather arbitrary way of doing things.
Just what is it about the age of the students that makes this such an important piece of information?
We know that in a given year group (say Year 7) there is at least a 12 month range in the ages of the students.
We know that in a given year group there is an even bigger range of ability and talent. Some Year 7 students may have the reading age of a Year 10 student. Others may only have the reading age of a Year 5 student.
Every body knows that the top Year 5 maths students are probably doing better at maths than some of the weaker Year 7 students.
Would it be any less significant to group students according to their 'height' instead of their age. That is, all those whose height is between 1.2 m and 1.3 m could be grouped together, ranked, graded and quartiled. Those between 1.3 m and 1.4 m could be similarly treated, etc, etc.
Why is the ranking of a group of students based on an arbitrary range of ages so significant?
Wouldn't it be better to indicate how each student is going by comparing them individually with some scale of achievement?
Nothing is more unequal than treating unequals as equals.
If grading and ranking into quartiles were to occur in Year 1, teachers would be grading students born up to 12 months apart. To compare a five year old with a six year old is unjust.
By Year 9 there is an even bigger spread. By Year 9 the academically talented students will have had nine years to get ahead. The students who have been struggling will have had nine years to drop behind.
To then treat them as equals and to rank, grade and quartile them is unjust.
Nothing is more unequal than treating unequals as equals.
"By making a monster out of OBE, some of the good things, and some of the hard work being done in our schools is being overlooked. This is sad, for there are teachers who have put their heart into the changes, and are now being upset by some comments being made in the public arena."
Hallux Quotient (HQ)
The previous Federal Minister Brendan Nelson indicated that the outcomes based education system was a "form of cancer". He said that in mathematics "students were falling behind other nations" (The West Australian, August 12, 2005)
This statement is reminiscent of a story that was circulated in the 1970s. At that time it was noticed that as a pupil moved up through the grades at primary school, his or her ability to carry out arithmetical computations, etc. (numeracy) improved. It was also noticed that as they progressed through primary school the size of their big toe increased.
Suddenly it was realized that numeracy was dependent on the size of a pupil's big toe.
Dr Nelson suggested that a (perceived) decline in Mathematics has been caused by the move to an outcomes approach to education.
Unfortunately this (perceived) decline also corresponds to:
- the introduction of DVDs in schools,
- the rise in the popularity of the iPod,
- the introduction of digital television,
- the rise in ownership of mobile phones,
- the popularity of Harry Potter,
- the increased average age of teachers,
- the rise in the use of powerpoint presentations in schools, and
- global warming.
Outcomes and Teaching Methods
In many ways a student centred approach may facilitate the assessment of outcomes achieved.
HOWEVER, there are some areas in some subjects that are more efficiently taught using teacher centred techniques; viz. lectures, demonstrations, illustrations, discussions, chalk and talk, etc.
In Science, one of the best examples of this is teaching the 'structure of the atom'. It is much more efficient for a teacher to ‘teach’ atomic structure to the class. Things like atoms, nucleus, protons, electrons, neutrons, location of particles, relative mass, electronic charge, are more efficiently explained by the teacher.
********
However the teaching of atomic structure also serves as an excellent illustration of the importance of ‘levels’.
If you teach atomic structure to an average Year 8 Science class, the reaction is ‘classical’. A small number of students latch on to it with enthusiasm. The vast majority of students suddenly go blank and have a glazed expression. They are not ready for Level 5 material (scientific models).
If you teach atomic structure in Year 9, a larger part of the class latches on to it and understands. A few don't because they are still only able to cope with Level 4 concepts. Most Year 9s can handle level 5, (and a small fraction of the class are ready for level 6 concepts).
In the past, Year 9 Chemistry students who could not cope with atomic structure were often given a D or F grade. However these students were probably quite successful in achieving Level 4 outcomes, and this should be recognized in their reports.
(Of course you can teach even younger students to draw a picture of an atom, but this is different to creating a model that can be used to explain chemical phenomena.)
********
Thus Outcomes is not about how you teach in the classroom (student centred or teacher centred). It is about how the students learn, and how we report their learning to their parents.
Music lessons (particularly lessons in music theory) have always been taught using an Outcomes Approach.
A thirteen year old music student would never be grouped with all other thirteen year old music students in the school, and then all taught the same level music course, all given a test and then given a grade.
What happens is that students study an appropriate music grade* according to their current skills and knowledge of theory. They are taught the skills/knowledge that are needed to get them ready for an exam which will allow them to progress to the next grade*.
Some thirteen year olds might still be doing Grade* 3 music, while others may be ready for Grade* 6. The music teacher does not presume to teach ALL thirteen year olds Grade* 4 music.
To assist teachers identify music grades*, appropriate teachers' guides are published by the A.M.E.B., indicating what outcomes would be expected in order to achieve the next grade* (see sample at site below).
The emphasis is on what the students have learned and what they still have to learn to get to the next level, rather than on what the teacher wants to teach.
It is a classic outcomes approach to learning.
********
*Grade in music lessons is equivalent to Level in this context and does not refer to the letters A, B, C, etc.
Reference: General Knowledge Questions in A.M.E.B. Examinations - 2005 Teacher Handbook W.A. Page 19, (A.M.E.B.).
Available at http://www.ameb.uwa.edu.au/handbook
Physics - At Last
When teaching Year 11 or Year 12 Physics it always worried me that I could not offer some students the course they actually needed.
In the past there was only ONE Physics course available, and it was designed mainly for the minority of students going on to study Science at university. In my classes I would often have students who were going in other directions.
Some of them would say “I am very keen on mechanical things. I am going to work in an engineering area of industry. I would love to learn more about Physics, because this could be very helpful to me in my TAFE studies.”
I would reply “I can only offer you ONE Physics course, and it is fairly academic with strong mathematical content, designed mainly for students going on to university. You could do it. It might help you. Unfortunately, I know from your background that you might finish up getting a low grade, which would tend to look bad on your report, but this is what the course is; it is a fairly academic course.”
I could not offer that student a Physics course that she could use; that she would be comfortable with, and that she could handle.
Now with the changes being introduced into Year 11 and 12, with the different levels of outcomes and the new units that are going to be available, I can see the possibility providing a Physics course for those students who might go into areas other than pure science.
It will free up my class from ‘THE COURSE’. There will now be a bigger range of units that I can teach, and they cover a bigger range of levels.
The outcomes approach means that I would no longer have to say, “Look, you got 30 per cent; you failed. You have not understood 70 per cent of what I have taught. You will get a D.”
Now, I could say “You understood 30 per cent very well. You have done very well on 30 per cent of the course.” I will be able to reward the students for what they have actually learned. The students will be rewarded for what they have achieved, rather than just being told “You will get a D.”
For the students heading to science at university the same Physics material is there. The units 3A and 3B contain basically the same material as in the past.
However the new units 1A and 1B provide a Physics course for those who may not be going on to study Physics at university. They also provide a good foundation course for those who may not have studied any Physics before, perhaps for some overseas students.
Richard Rennie
Limited Levels in Primary School
There is a concern about the limited number of Levels available to report on in Primary School.
People like to see some signs of progress on reports, and are more comfortable when they can see that progress. Without some concrete sign of progress they can get concerned.
However, in a system using grades, a student of average ability in Year 3 who was working well might achieve a ‘C’ grade in a given subject. If the student worked consistently each year she would probably achieve a ‘C’ grade next year in Year 4, and probably ‘C’ again in Years 5 and 6 and 7.
If the student was working to capacity the parents probably would not have complained about the student getting the SAME GRADE each year. On the surface the repeated ‘C’ grade look like a lack of progress, yet we (and the parents) know she has progressed.
At university we have never had any trouble accepting the fact that it may take four years to reach the level required to gain a degree.
So spending several years to reach the next Level is not unreasonable.
OBE and All That Jazz
OBE was being hotly debated a few months ago.
However three DIFFERENT issues were actually involved in this debate.
- The complexity/detail of the school reports,
- The outcomes approach to teaching/learning, and
- The changes to the post compulsory curriculum.
This is unfortunate because each of the above issues has its own unique problems, each has its own challenges and each has its own solutions.
Complex/detailed Reports
Discussions have occurred concerning the current format of the school reports. Historically things have not changed much.
Take for example a 1989 Year 5 primary school report (in the author's collection). It must have taken the teacher a lot of time to generate this report (by hand - no computers). There were 17 numerical entries to be made for the various subjects (numbers 1, 2, 3 or 4 to be inserted - effectively grades), and 7 out of 21 boxes had to be ticked for Personal and Social Development. The teacher also wrote a total of 250+ words alongside the subjects and in the General Comments, and the Principal wrote two comments and there were two stickers.
This complex/detailed level of reporting was being used WELL BEFORE 'OUTCOMES' arrived. Yet complex reports and outcomes are being lumped together in a lot of the public debate.
By contrast a 1957 Class 5 report contained twelve marks (out of 10) for the twelve subjects, and only 19 words in General remarks. There is a delicate balance between providing too much information and too little detail.
Outcome approach to teaching/learning
It is seven years since outcomes were first introduced in Primary Schools. There is a whole generation of teachers and primary school pupils who have known little else. Its consequent introduction into secondary schools was a logical step.
Changes to the Post Compulsory Curriculum
The changes being proposed and introduced into Years 11 and 12 are dramatic, challenging and some people say exciting. The changing of (is it over) 300 subjects into 50 Courses of Study is a substantial change.
The implications for the timetable, changes in the numbers of teachers required, the reworking of teaching programs, the changes to exam content, the orientation of year 10 students, and the explanation of these changes to the parents must be causing lots of additional work. All this would still be a challenge even if the Curriculum Council had stayed with grades in Year 11 and 12.
Also some teachers are not convinced that the materials being generated for the Courses of Study by the Curriculum Council are really very helpful. The Curriculum Council may have used the wrong model for the Course of Study guides.
OBE
Unfortunately all of the above three issues seem to have been lumped together in the public arena under the one heading - OBE.
The public debate is thus oversimplified, sensationalized and biased. Such oversimplification must be causing great stress to teachers and parents. The aim of PLUTO is to give a less sensationalized voice to another side of the debate.
The Problem of Attracting Bright Students into Physics
There seems to be some difficulty in attracting higher ability students into Physics, both at school and at university.
The minimum TER score for Physics at UWA in 2005 was 83, the same as for Commerce, and only one point above that required for Bachelor of Arts - Women's Studies, and three point higher than that required for Horticulture and Viticulture.
“Physics is not an academic subject” - Year 11 student.
One problem is that Physics is seen by some bright students as NOT being an academic subject. All the students have to do is learn and apply the content. There is no creativity. There are no unknowns. It is all there in the text. Of courses there are physics calculations. But for increased challenge there are simply harder calculations. In Year 11/12 Physics there is little academic challenge. The old physics course is not an academic subject.
“If it is not in the course I do not want to know about it.” - Year 12 student.
A not uncommon question asked by students who are after a high TER score (in order to get into Medicine) is “Is this in the course?” There is no reward for going outside the course in a one-course-suits-all grades-based system. Grades do not ‘inspire’ bright students
If we had an outcomes based course we could offer the intellectual challenge of achieving Level 8 in Year 11. Instead all we can offer is an A grade in Year 11 Physics. Grades do not inspire bright students to do great things.
People keep complaining about the difficulty of getting bright students to take up Physics (both at high school and university). They fail to see that perhaps the fault lies in the physics course itself
The insufficient number of bright students electing to take up Physics clearly indicates that the old “underlying education system” both in high school Physics and in university Physics is not working and has not been doing so for years.
QUOTE OF THE YEAR
Children have an enormous capacity for learning.
We cannot afford to have them spend their schooldays sitting in class watching teachers teach.
(Original source not known.)
UNIVERSITIES MODEL OUTCOMES
When PHD candidates are about to begin their research projects, the candidates and their supervisors usually go through the statistical skills and research techniques that the candidates must acquire/learn before they can begin gathering data and analysing the data for their thesis.
They are modelling an outcomes approach.
Should We Change?
When I think about how I was taught at school (especially high school) I shudder.
When I first started teaching I modelled myself on my favourite Year 10 - 12 science teacher. I emulated his style. It took me four years to realize how bad he was, and how much some in the class suffered. Yet in the 50s he was considered to be an example of excellence. The world changed and left him behind.
An outcomes approach to teaching is no more than the usual practice of good teaching. It is the assessment using grades that, like my old teacher, belongs to an older world.
Richard Rennie
Choice of Schools
Would you send your children to learn tennis at a coaching school that teaches all students the same tennis course at the same level, and then grades them A to E at the end of the course?
Or would you send your children to a school that assesses the levels of the various skills they already have (backhand, forehand, serve, etc.), puts them in an appropriate (tennis) grade, and then teaches them in a way that lifts their skills up to a higher level? This is what 'outcomes education' is all about.
Of course everyone who learns tennis has to learn the same skills, the same curriculum. However it would incorrect to assume all 17 year olds were in the B Grade competition and teach them at that level only. Some might be at A Reserve, some might be achieving at a lower level of outcomes.
Response 1
Preparing for Failure in the Real World
It has often been said that NOT using the word 'fail' on school reports is wrong because failure does occur in the real world. Some people simply do not succeed in the rest of their life.
However the link between failure at school and failure in the real world is less than certain.
In everybody's teaching career there are examples of students who were failures in academic subjects at school, but who went on to earn more money than their teachers.
Never-the-less, many students who fail at school DO fail in the real world. And as teachers we have, in the past, prepared them well for this by giving them plenty of practice at failing.
It is doubtful that we should be proud of this.
(Addendum: In my career I taught a super model and the most notorious robber of the past 30 years. The grades I gave them had little effect on their careers.
Richard Rennie)
Outcomes and the 3 Rs
Regularly there is a push to "return to the 3 Rs".
There is nothing wrong with the 3 Rs as such, and knowing one's tables off by heart is a valuable tool.
However when pupils know their tables, why just give them an A grade? Let them progress to a higher level of mathematical outcomes.
And if pupils have not yet mastered their tables, why just give them a D grade? Give them more time at that mathematical level to learn their tables before they progress to the next level of mathematical outcomes.
This is all that outcomes is about; good old fashioned teaching with a fairer reporting procedure.
THE DUMBING DOWN EFFECT OF GRADES
If there is one thing that grades do very well it is to lower the achievement aspirations of the very bright students.
In Grades Based Education (GBE) the same 'course' is taught to ALL students in the class. The SAME material is covered in the SAME tests, sat for by all students in the class. Then the students are ranked and graded.
If a student is able to get an A grade in the subject (along with an average of 20-25% of all the other students), there is no where to go. Why try harder? You get no extra reward.
This cannot be the way to teach in the twenty-first century. The curricula must be opened up and the top students allowed to soar.
RESEARCHERS
Some teachers have tended to blame 'educational researchers' for the structure of the proposed post compulsory curriculum changes.
It must be pointed out 'educational researchers' gather evidence, often using qualitative observational data or controlled variables methods, and come to evidence-based conclusions as to what is the best way to teach/learn.
These evidence-based conclusions may then be presented to the education administrators who can accept or reject these conclusions.
It would be illogical for administrators and teachers to ignore evidence-based conclusions about the best ways to teach/learn.
Response3
A CHEMISTRY COURSE BASED ON ACHIEVING OUTCOMES
The most exciting Chemistry course I ever taught was a Year 9 Chemistry unit based on an "outcomes achieved" approach.
A BIT OF HISTORY
When I first started teaching science we taught 'topics'. Originally they were parts of the courses Science A and Science B (pre 1972). Later we taught the Chemistry topics in Achievement Certificate Science (viz. Chemical Calculations and Descriptive Chemistry, etc.).
In each case there was a set syllabus adopted by the school for each topic (with some variation occurring between schools). All students that studied a given Chemistry topic sat for the same test, and we graded them. The B.S.E. even came around to check our grades. (Remember the Comparability Tests we endured in Year 8 and Year 10).
We instinctively knew what an A grade was and we knew how to identify a D grade. Even parents got to recognize what the grades stood for.
However, if you were to allow different students to study different Chemistry material, and perhaps let them study different amounts of that material, how could you grade them? The students' results would not be comparable.
USE LEVELS
At my school, in 2000, we designed a Year 9 Chemistry Unit that had a sequence of outcomes to be achieved rather than a set syllabus.
The unit commenced with various level 3 and 4 outcomes (the usual stuff about the properties of elements, their symbols, properties of compounds, etc.). The level of the outcomes to be achieved increased progressively, with some final sections/activities requiring level 7.
The students were told that this was not a course that had to be covered by all students.
Bright/academic students were allowed to 'soar'. They could zoom through the easy stuff, skip any material that they already knew from past experience, and get on to the more challenging material. Why should they wait for the rest of the class (or for the teacher).
Less academic students were told they "did not have to complete the whole unit". It was explained that there was more material in the unit than even the top students could handle. They were encouraged to work at such a pace that they could UNDERSTAND what they were studying.
TESTS
Academic tests were prepared for assessment of the various outcomes achieved. These tests were to be used at several points (at least four or five) in the course. The test had questions with the levels (roughly levels 4 - 7) indicated next to each question.
Students could sit for a test whenever they thought they were ready for it. They would approach the teacher for a copy of the test, sit for the test, then mark it themselves in front of the teacher from a solutions folder, and present their paper to the teacher for discussion.
They were told that they could re-do any sections they were not happy with, and could re-sit those sections using parallel tests prepared for each part of the course.
Bright/academic students zoomed through the early parts of the course and quickly got into the more challenging material. Their level of achievement rose.
Weaker/less academic students could now slow down and study the course at the pace at which they could 'understand'. They were not dragged along, not understanding what they were being taught. They were treated with respect and they responded accordingly. The achievement of these students also improved. They were not failures.
STRUCTURE OF UNIT
Naturally this type of course of study required a solid underlying structure.
TEAM TEACHING - The Chemistry unit worked well because we used a team-teaching model (two teachers with two Year 9 classes in adjoining laboratories).
TUTORIALS - We offered tutorials to the less able students, giving them personal group tuition (usually with about 6 in the group), while the brighter independent learners got on with the job. ("All those that are having problems with balancing equations form a group around this table.")
MULTI-MEDIA SUPPORT - Computers were used to fill in some gaps. For example, multi-media tutorials were prepared to illustrate how to use indicators, how to test conductivity of metals/non metals, how to balance equations, etc. Animations provided support that was not possible in text books.
LEVELS
Grading the students was totally inappropriate in this type of class. You cannot compare students that have studied different (amounts) of material.
It is more informative to indicate to what level the students achieved. These levels were easily determined from the academic tests and other assessment vehicles.
Richard Rennie
How Teachers Teach
In the past teachers instinctively aimed the level of their teaching at the second bottom fifth group of students in the class.
Teachers could not aim their teaching at the top 'pentile' of students in the class. This would mean that too many students would not cope and be left behind.
They could not teach to the bottom 'pentile' students. Even though this meant that all students would cope, it would also mean the top academic students would be under-achieving and bored.
Instinctively teachers taught to the second bottom 'pentile' of students. This way a majority of students (80%) could cope and only the bottom 20% would be struggling.
There are serious implication in this for all teachers.
Source unknown - some research done about 15- 20 years ago
Grades
I would not want my daughters ranked each term and compared academically with the rest of the state.
If my daughters were of less than average academic ability, I would not want them reminded of this, term after term, by being given a 'D' grade (D for Dumb, or is it Dunce?).
I would want them to do the best they can and to be rewarded for what they have achieved, not be reminded each term of what they could not do."
Richard Rennie
School Reports
There was a furore when grades were introduced in the 1960s.
BRIEF HISTORY OF REPORTS
In the 1950s Primary School reports were extremely brief. The students were given a mark out of 10 for each subject.
In the 1950s, High School reports contained a percentage mark for each subject, and a mark out of 10 for effort.
PROBLEMS WITH PERCENTAGE MARKS
Percentage marks were not easy to interpret. For example:
1. If a student achieved a mark of 74%, there was no way of telling if that was a good mark or a poor mark. There was no way of telling if the mark of 74% was the top mark in the class, or perhaps a very low mark in that subject.
2. Percentage marks were not comparable between subjects. A mark of 74% in a hard subject was not equivalent to a mark of 74% in an easy subject.
MOVE TO GRADES
To try to make the system better, in the 1960s grades were introduced. The top students in a subject were given an A. The bottom students were given a D or E, equivalent to a fail.
FURORE OVER CHANGE TO GRADES
There was a prolonged antipathy to the introduction of grades. The parents who were educated in a system that used percentages could not cope with these abstract letter grades. They wanted something concrete, like a mark out of 100. Something they were used to. They could not understand grades. People usually prefer what they themselves had at school.
But today, grades have caused other problems.
PROBLEMS WITH GRADES
1. There were no absolute standards for grades. An 'A' in a difficult subject (like Science or Maths) was not equivalent to an 'A' in an easier subject (like Health Education or Applied Science). Even within one subject area, an 'A' in Introductory Calculus is not equivalent to an 'A' in Mathematics in Practice .
2. Grades caused confusion and misinterpretations amongst employers. When selecting a young person for employment, employers would often compare school reports. Because employers were not familiar with the different subjects (over 300), students with a lot of 'A' grades in easy subjects appeared on paper to have better results than students with ‘B’ and ‘C’ grades in a range of difficult subjects.
3. Grades caused motivation problems in weaker students. To be told year after year that, no matter how hard you have worked, you only got a ‘D’ grade (i.e. at the bottom of the class) is demoralizing. You had little chance of improving this grade because the barrier for a higher grade was raised each year. Grades were the source of many discipline problems.
4. Giving a talented Year 8 student an 'A' grade was no incentive to work harder since there was nowhere to go above the 'A' grade. Many of these students tended to coast along, doing the minimum necessary to maintain this grade.
Grades are simply not suitable for the twenty first century. They do not give less able students credit for the (limited) success that they have achieved. They highlight the failings of the weaker students rather than highlighting their achievements. They do not challenge the brighter students.
DECILES
In the late 70s, deciles were used for a short period of time. Teachers had to give the top 10% of their students a 1, the next 10% a 2, etc. It had nothing to do with achievement. It just indicated how many of your class mates did better than you. It only lasted a few years.
LEVELS
To overcome these problems a systems of levels (1 to 8 ) is being introduced for all subjects.
ADVANTAGES OF LEVELS
1. Levels are comparable across all subjects. A Level 5 in Science is equivalent to a Level 5 in any other subjects. This means that employers and parents can make direct comparisons between subjects results, and between students.
2. Levels show the parents what outcomes the students have achieved. They indicate the levels to which he or she has succeeded.
3. Levels also indicate what a student has to do to achieve the next higher level of outcomes. It is a system of positive feedback.
4. Levels may be better predictors of readiness for university. Students who have only achieved levels 4 or 5 by the time they have got into Year 11 know immediately that they are not yet up to the level required for tertiary studies. Also universities can set their own prerequisites, such as requiring level 7 or 8 for admission to their faculty.
REACTION AGAINST REPORTING LEVELS OF OUTCOMES
As occurred in the sixties there is a feeling of uneasiness about these changes.
Some people prefer to have the system that was used when they were at school.
However, already there is a whole generation of pupils who are coming through primary school being assessed in the outcomes they have achieved. These students, the parents of tomorrow, have never known grades and will be quite comfortable with levels of outcomes provided on comprehensive and detailed reports.
The world cannot survive on nostalgia. The longing for grades is natural, but inappropriate in a changing world.
Outcomes in Year 11 and 12
Consider two subjects.
PHYSICS
Physics is usually considered to be one of the more difficult subjects in the present TEE system. It has strong mathematical content and was designed largely to prepare students for Physics at university. It is usually only studied by the more able student.
If a non-academic student needed to study some physics at high school, perhaps for a career based on a TAFE/industrial course, there was no suitable course available. He or she had to study the full (and only) TEE Physics course, perhaps achieving a low grade or even a fail. The alternative was to study no physics at all.
In the proposed new 'Post Compulsory Curriculum' system there are six Physics units. The top two Physics units (3A and 3B) contain the same material at the same level of difficulty as is presently studied in Year 12. It is still the course for students wanting to do science at University.
The middle two units (2A and 2B) are equivalent to that already studied in Year 11 Physics.
However the bottom two units (1A and 1B) provide a more basic course for those students who need to study some Physics, but who may not study a full science course at university. These units could also be taken by those students who have a poor background in Physics, perhaps some overseas students. These are the units in which they could succeed and which may be ideal for a non-university career path. They also leave the door open to higher studies in Physics at a later date.
HEALTH STUDIES
In the present system Heath Studies is usually considered to be a course which is not as hard as Physics. A student with a lot of ability may never choose to study it. It is not a TEE subject.
However, professional careers in the health area are very important.
In the proposed new 'Post Compulsory Curriculum' there would be units of Health Education added on to the top of the current curriculum to provide a more challenging (up to level 8) and more worthwhile course for those who may pursue tertiary studies in the health areas.
For these students these new units are vital.
MUSIC LESSON ANALOGY
If a parent had a son or daughter who wanted to improve his or her piano playing skills, would they send the child to a music school that only taught one piano course at one level, and then gave the students a grade (A to E)?
In reality what happens is, the current level of the student's piano skill is assessed, and he or she studies a piano course at an appropriate level to achieve the next level of outcomes.
It is never assumed that all music students should study the same level of music outcomes.
The same applies to students studying Physics (or Health Studies). Students should study units at an appropriate level which allows them to succeed and to move on up to a higher level. This is what outcomes is all about.
It appears that some teachers are resisting these changes and are still wanting to teach all students the same course with the same level of outcomes, no matter what levels the students are currently at.
CHANGES BEING INTRODUCED
All the learning objectives in the present TEE traditional subjects (such as Physics) are still there in the course.
However, extra units are being added at the lower end of more difficult subjects and at the top end of the more easy subjects, giving students (gifted and less able) better choice.
Students will still need to study the top level 'courses of study' to pursue top level courses at university. Universities can demand this by setting their own prerequisites (such as making level 7 or 8 in Physics units 3A and 3B essential for studying Physics at university).
ADVANTAGE OF LEVELS
In the present system, when a student studies a difficult subject, and gets a low score of say 30%, he or she would probably be given a ‘D’ grade or even a fail.
The argument has always been that he or she has FAILED to understand 70% of the course outcomes.
In the past we have let these students down by not acknowledging that they have actually been quite SUCCESSFUL in 30% of the outcomes.
Such recognition of outcomes achieved is long overdue.
Response2
P.L.U.T.O. Coffee Mugs and Ties