Just listening to radio reports regarding the latest NAPLAN findings. I'm a bit bemused. I think some folks believe that NAPLAN is supposed to improve literacy and numeracy rates amongst schoolchildren. If that's the case then that particular bit of folk wisdom needs a bit of touching up. But one commentator did mention that teaching is what helps children learn, not testing. Now I'm waiting for the explosive debate on teaching and learning methods. I'm interested because I work teaching adults literacy and numeracy and a few other things. For anyone who might have a view on the issues, I favour direct instruction although not solely. As far as education philosophy goes I'm very much a constructivist, probably on the social constructivism side (particularly Vygtosky) but I see the value of direct instruction for both adults and children and don't see it as drilling. There I go again, sitting on the fence...
Many years ago I used to help out at the nearsest High school with children haveing problems with reading and maths. I would first have a bit of a chat with them and find out what interested them, then we would go to the library and find books about those subjects. I found they all became eager to learn to read when it was something they were interested in that they were trying to read. The same with maths, I would construct problems around their interests. Once again they became eager to learn how to get the answers. The problem we have with schooling today is that it is the end result of PC Labor administrators having control over the corriculum in the states for the last 20 odd years.
Our international rankings in educational scores have gone down since NAPLAN was implemented. We used to be top 5 for everything in the OECD PISA test. Now we're racing to catch up with the US's sliding position.
Diuretic, NAPLAN I thought is more a tool to measure funding support. Indirectly you would think all testing aims to improve learning, especially with effective marking guides, which would have to be a gauge for evaluation of teaching learning effectiveness and provision of important information for teachers. So, testing in general is a great tool one would think. The type of testing is another story but otherwise an important assessment depending on what is being learnt, taking into consideration skills based learning. I'm led to believe that teaching has changed from solely direct instruction to more facilitating, although it depends on your definition of direct instruction. In my mind, facilitating learning requires direct instruction of sorts. The old chalk and talk methods has its place but not effective without some type of variety in methodology. A variety of methods no doubt takes into consideration the variation in learning styles. Effective scaffolding and connectedness are essential to learning development. Things have changed it seems but even rote learning stills has an important place.
Well done! My respect. I worked with the younger ones, set up my own school in challenge to Qld government who not have the nerve to come near it. Children met the caveman and the dog. They were given an ego and a computer, with two rules your work not done by the morning you go to the end of the queue at the gate, same apply if any other child's work not done, its one for all and all for one. Climbed trees, split wood, lit fires, looked after the animals all in the safety of knowing if anybody approached them the caveman would split em in half breakfast time to bum hole. Sort of gets to you seeing children not wanting to go home from school!
