As part of our move towards incorporating Student Outcome Statements (SOS) strategies in Lower School we have been engaged in modifying our assessment structures and curriculum delivery with selected classes. The introduction of two new Lower School subjects provided the ideal opportunity to develop materials ‘from the ground up’ with SOS in mind. Three teachers are involved. Two classes are Year10 and one is Year9.

The target Learning Area is "Technology and Enterprise". The two new subjects are "Introduction to Multimedia" and "Computer Interfacing". The third subject is a Business Studies subject called "Word Processing".

The approaches under trial have a number of underlying principles:

1. Each subject is written in terms of SOS.
2. Curriculum delivery reflects approaches adopted in Upper School CAT/CAF subjects.
3. Assessment is based on ‘Levels’.

The details of each subject and way in which they relate to the SOS are discussed elsewhere. This document focuses on course delivery and teacher observations at the conclusion of the ‘trial’.

Having recently introduced new Upper School Common Assessment Task / Common Assessment Framework (CAT/CAF) subjects we were concerned that our students did not have the pre-requisite skills needed to work independently in a ‘self-directed’ learning environment. It was felt that by introducing structures into Lower School that reflected what was expected in Upper School students would be better prepared and more likely to succeed in CAT/CAGF subjects.

Each subject was structured as a series of small activities called "Essentials" designed to ensure students have the skills needed to complete the formal assessment activities called "Tasks".

Students spend a number of periods working through the Essentials and then complete the Task.

Course Delivery

An issue not yet discussed concerns timetabling of the classes. In our case all classes are working on a "semester-based" time line. Lessons are conducted twice a week for twenty weeks. Each lesson is approximately one hour. The timetable is structured so that the teacher sees their class either on Monday and Wednesday, or Thursday and Friday. In the first situation there is a four day break from the Wednesday to the next time the teacher sees the class. The Thursday/Friday arrangement results in a five day break. As discussed in the concluding paragraphs, we believe this long break between classes had an impact on the success of the strategies under trial.

Two classes followed programs closely reflecting our current CAT/CAF approach. Several essentials were set with support material and in-class instructions provided outlining to students how to complete the work. Students were provided with a detailed ‘check-list’ of what to submit and assisted with planning techniques, record-keeping strategies and so on. Each student was able to work independently and at their own rate. A recommended completion date was set, more by way of providing guidance than as a formal deadline. It was assumed that students would spend around 4 to 6 periods on each essential. After completing two to three essentials, the student had the basics needed to complete a "Task". It was anticipated that students would complete two to three Tasks during the subject.

The third class followed a much more structured program. Each week the entire class completed the same essential. In this case the essentials were smaller activities than those used with the other two classes that could be completed in the two periods available per week. When an appropriate number of essentials were completed the entire class moved on to the Task. This approach is more ‘lock-stepped’ that that adopted with the other two classes.

The ‘self-directed’ approach adopted with the first two classes was a dismal failure. Students fell a long way behind in submitting their completed work. Continuity was lost over the four (or five) day break between lessons. While students were easily able to pick up where they had left off in the earlier period of the week, they found it difficult to pick up where they had left off in the previous week. The first period of each week became a ‘refresher’ period where the teacher tried to re-focus students on their work to date. Rather than having two constructive periods per week, students were effectively working on new work for just over one period. The result was that the number of essentials completed was far below what was anticipated and this in turn lead to a much lower rate of Task completion. By the end of term one most students had completed only one essential and were part way towards completing the second. In our planning we had anticipated at least two essentials and most of a Task would be completed by the end of term one.

The third class was a completely different story. The vast majority of students completed their ‘essential’ each week and were more focused in their activities. More Tasks were completed. The productivity of the third group was far above the other two classes. The long break between lessons did not appear to have the same impact as it did with the other two classes. Students in this group were certainly producing more and possibly learning more.

In promoting his "Educating Boys" approach, Ian Lillicoe favors the use of small, bite-sized activities in preference to large tasks conducted over extended periods of time. His focus is on improving outcomes for the learning of boys, but it could be argued that such an approach has relevance for young students of either sex. The third class in this case study working under a more structured program certainly produced more work than the two groups working in a less structured environment. First impressions are that students benefit from closer supervision. The question is whether this is a case of maturation and cognitive ability, or past experiences.

The two classes following the less structured program produced less work, but it may well be that they will be in a better position to succeed in CAT/CAF subjects when they move into Upper School. With the move towards extension of the ‘K to 12 Learning Framework’ into Upper School as result of the Post Compulsory Review this is an issue that will face all educators in Western Australia (WA) over the next few years. All assessment in WA will be based on outcomes. Students will be assessed to be producing work at specified ‘levels’ related to each outcome. One approach is to provide the students with all of the required underlying skills needed to demonstrate their level of ability and then provuide them with the opportunity to demonstrate their level mastery. The other approach is to structure the learning environment to ‘extract’ evidence of the student's ability. This case study highlights those two approaches. At this stage it is uncertain which approach is most beneficial to student learning.

Return to Home Page