Faculty of Education - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemThe alignment of valued performance types in assessment practices and curriculum in year 5 mathematics and science classrooms( 2014)Curricular alignment can be defined as the degree to which the performance types valued in curriculum statements (intended curriculum), instruction (enacted curriculum) and assessment (assessed curriculum) at all levels form a coherent system. This thesis reports on six key performance type categories that were used to examine the alignment of assessment practices with the intended and enacted curriculum. The six categories are knowing, performing, communicating, reasoning, non-routine problem solving and making connections. The research was undertaken as a comparative case study of two science and two mathematics primary classrooms. The methods employed were video-recorded lessons and interviews, questionnaires, document analysis and classroom observations. This study sought to determine the scope of practice (variety of performance types) evident in mathematics and science classrooms by examining the vertical and horizontal alignment of performance types. The vertical alignment analysis determined the correspondence among valued performance types in assessments at different levels of the schooling system (national, state and school levels). The horizontal alignment analysis consisted of making comparisons of performance types between classrooms at the same level and across two domains; mathematics and science. Ultimately, the classroom implementation of assessment of the curriculum is the responsibility of the teacher, so it can be argued that those performance types valued in the classroom are determined by the teacher. However, the teacher will inevitably be influenced by factors beyond the classroom, such as the state mandated curriculum, school curriculum requirements and high stakes testing. The major assertion of this study is that if performance types are not evident in classroom practice, then they are not available for formative assessment purposes and should not be summatively assessed. The findings show that in mathematics, ‘knowing’ and ‘performing procedures’ are consistently privileged in the national assessment program and through school-‐based assessment practices. These performance types were dominant in the enacted and assessed curriculum at the classroom level. The science data analysis showed that the scope of practice in the science classrooms consisted of all six performance type categories; knowing, performing, communicating, reasoning, non-routine problem solving and making connections. The relative diversity of science performance types could reflect the nature of the science curriculum at the school level and the fact that it is not subjected to the same testing, monitoring and auditing process as the mathematics curriculum. This provides teachers with the autonomy to select activities more frequently on the basis of their investigative appeal. Mathematics and English are the two domains that are assessed through the national standardised testing program and tend to dominate the primary school curriculum. Another key finding is that different school structures influence who has authoring responsibilities for the intended curriculum. The responsibility given to authorship of internal and external curriculum documents and assessment has significant implications for classroom practice and assessment. It is a recommendation of this study that monitoring programs, such as the national assessment program, are carefully aligned with the performance types valued in curriculum standards. The authority afforded to the intended curriculum and assessment documents, such as standardised testing, can be a restricting factor in the performance types that are evident in classroom practice.