Importance of Studying NAPLAN - Essay Example

Running head: NAPLAN Name xxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxx Date National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) NAPLAN is a national program which began in 2008 in Australian schools. Began and conducted by the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), this program measures student performance in literacy with a national scope administering national tests. An analysis of this program requires a national approach given that the program has national application. This involves a cross-sectional study which will detail comparison of various regions the state. It is vital to analyze the effects of the program by comparing the education sector both before and after it was launched. It is also vital to cite and analyze improvements that have been made since it was launched. This is in addition to analyzing the effectiveness of such a program and of the improvements. The effectiveness is analyzed from the view of current effects and the concern for sustainability or long-term projections. Importance of studying NAPLAN The study of NAPLAN in Australia is of particular importance to stakeholders in the education sector at all levels: early childhood, primary education, high school and collegiate. This is because of the transferability effect. The NAPLAN tests are constructed to assess and challenge student knowledge skills and understandings appropriate to each level (Freeman, 2009). The test scores at a level ushers students into the next implying the need to ensure high validity and reliability of the tests at any level. Such knowledge would assist MCEETYA fine-tune the system to ensure reliability of results. It is vital to assess how insightful the quantitative and qualitative data provided by NAPLAN on student performance is. This is by assessing the tests used such as proofreading, grammar and algebra. An analysis is vital in identifying the national presence of the government in the schooling system. An understanding of the efficiency and applicability of the system in early childhood education may assist educators appreciate the contributions of the government. It is also vital in helping them contribute to any policy and practice debate that intends at influencing government education policy making. Apart from investments into Australian school system infrastructure, there is a more obvious manifestation of the strengthened national presence. There is new accountability platform: NAPLAN (Lingard, 2009). The outcomes of the tests have attracted substantial media coverage enhancing interstate and school comparisons. Performance outcomes comparisons have spurred new sense of accountability for educators and education administrators and policy makers alike. Stakeholder analysis The study of NAPLAN is important to various stakeholders: MCEETYA, education administrators, educators, observers, students and parents. To the government through MCEETYA, NAPLAN success means efficiency in the system. The national tests replaced the diverse tests by regions and territories enhancing the comparability of students’ results and reducing duplication levels. The success may also be useful in analyzing the effectiveness of national education interventions and appropriately identifying need (Freeman, 2009). Administrators and educators will be keen to assess the value of their input into the students. This is because NAPLAN sets a platform for accountability. Also, strong results are indicative of a strong community. Parents and students need an understanding of the system due to concerns of test preparedness. Students need to be familiar with test instructions and common forms of questions, and what test results imply for them. The parents and teacher need to know how they can adequately prepare the students. Validity and reliability A detailed analysis of NAPLAN requires an assessment guided by quality assessment parameters: validity, reliability, authenticity and flexibility. Though these parameters are interrelated, they are highly individual and so need to be individually addressed. There are basically two types of validity: content validity and construct validity. Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures or assesses what is intended to measure. A test is valid if the instrument’s items or contents are related to its operationally defined theory and concepts (DeVon & et al, 2007; Lissitz & Samuelsen, 2007). Reliability is adistict concept of quality assessment refering to the extent to which refers to the measure of true scores. It includes the measurement or the examination of stability and equivalence. It related to validity with literature indicating that both are not distinctly concepts (Lissitz & Samuelsen, 2007). NAPLAN has been detailed as conforming to quality specs. This has been achieved through the main stages of NAPLAN testing which includes test development, administration, marking and data recording, data analysis and reporting. At the development stage, there are phases which are rigorous borrowing from national and international best practice . The tests are developed using a nationally agreed platform known as the Statements of Learning (acara, 2011). These statements reflect and assemble educational core elements from all territories and states. The procedural phases include test design, item development and construction, review, item trailing done through sampling students, data analysis and final selection and finally, the construction of final test forms and the NAPLAN common scale. The common scale not only provides for a common platform of national equation, but it is also designed to provide a mapped and trailed performance progress for each student. The final selection capes up the design phase. It is based on a set of quality assurances established in the policy formulating the national testing system. The assurances are based on detailed psychometric data, professional appraisal resulting from educational measurement and educational experts and the NAPLAN test specifications (acara, 2011). Experts advise on development as well as key technical specifications for reporting, equating and communicating standards. However, there are numerous critiques of the validity and reliability of NAPLAN. This is based on the concern for delineating the boundary between content and achievement standards. Content standards apply to schools and education systems as poised by MCEETYA whereas achievement standards apply to the students, referring to the gains they accrue from their learning. These present to policy makers two kinds of standards: improved learning and accountability (Valentina & Claire, 2010). Accountability testing has assumed high profile in the Australian public yielding into doubts on the intention of tests and how they are assisting to improve learning (Valentia, 2009). This is because educators tend to customize their teaching to the NAPLAN tests in order to score high in the comparative ranking. In addition, reliability begets questionable with reference to the now included social moderation considerations in NAPLAN. Culturally centered of culture fair are essential for greater equity and success of indigenous students. Teachers use culturally relevance pedagogic practices both in teaching and assessment. However this is beneficial, it raises the doubt on reliability (Valentia, 2009). Flexibility The principle of flexibility demands that interventions are easily adaptable to changing scenario and time need. This principle builds on the concept that there is limited homogeneity of need scenarios. The education sector is sensitive to the need for flexibility. This is because of the need for adaptability to the diverse needs of students across different socio-cultural and economic needs. The difference in the performance of students from the diverse cultures of Australia may be due to the bias of the test in addition to accessibility that does not match the need of the test. The content and structure of the test are deemed inflexible to these students’ needs and experiences limiting their engagement with the national tests (Valentia, 2009). Whilst NAPLAN has enhanced validity and reliability of national results, there is need for equity or fairness in assessment. This is to take care of the needs of Indigenous students and those who need adaptation. In Valentia (2009), Stobart (2005) defines equity in assessment as a qualitative concern for what is just. As such it is more of sociological issues that it is technical (Valentia, 2009). The concern for flexibility is a key driver of the Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA) when it recommends for flexibility in the running of schools. In its position paper, the organization recommends that MCEETYA should establish a process where individual schools may get audited independently (APPA, 2009). The government also acknowledges that principals of schools in disadvantaged areas should have flexibility so that they can tailor their schools’ operations to meet the needs of local communities. This is in a bid to halve the gap for literacy of Indigenous students by 2018 (MCEECDYA, 2010). Authenticity The principle of authenticity in the early childhood education demands that learning is sensitive to perspective, context, goals and creation of meaning. As such, any educational experience both at the instructional level and assessment should provide for activities that are valued and required in the students’ real world since the orientation and experiences of the student establish the value and usability of what is learnt. This emphasizes the need to prepare individuals for life beyond learning institutions. The principle of authenticity ensures that whilst students are being assessed, there is integration, orchestration and application of the skills learnt in meaningful contexts. This underscores the need for the structure of tests to be beyond assessment but as having more meaning. Sound assessment is based on authentic reading of texts and contexts and instructions of tasks. As such, any assessment should be considerate of how the interaction of the student, the test, and context influence performance and the meaning derived. Assessing the numeracy tests of the NAPLAN, there is a trial in enhancing the authenticity. This is manifested by the use of symbols requiring individual cognition and competencies beyond school. However, it is impossible to authentically assess student numeracy on a national scale (Perso, 2011). This is because students do not have to decide whether some concepts learnt in class will help in answering the test since they know it will due to the labeling with the test paper (Perso, 2011). References acara. (2011, February ). Reporting . Retrieved December 21, 2011, from Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority : http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Reliability_and_validity_of_NAPLAN.pdf APPA. (2009). Australian Primary Principals Association position paper on the publication of nationally comparable school performance information. Canberra: APPA. DeVon, H., & et al. (2007). A psychmetric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Nursing scholarship 39 (2) , 155-164. Freeman, C. (2009). First national literacy & numeracy tests introduced. Research Developments 20 (12) , 12-15. Lingard, B. (2009, November). Testing Times: The need for new intelligent accountabilities for schooling. QTU Professional Magazine , pp. 13-19. Lissitz, R., & Samuelsen. (2007). Dialogue on Validity: A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education . Educational Researcher 36(8) , 437-448. MCEECDYA. (2010). Indigenous Education Action Plan Draft 2010-2014: For public comment. Canberra: MCEECDYA. Perso, T. (2011). Assessing Numeracy and NAPLAN. Canberra: AAMT Inc. Valentia, K. (2009). Raising the stakes: the challenges for teacher assessment. AARE International Education Research Conference- 2009 (pp. 1-33). Canberra: Queensland University of Technology . Valentina, K., & Claire, W. (2010). Standards, teacher judgement and moderation in contexts of national curriculum and assessment reform. Assessment matters, 2 , 107-131. Read More