Aligning curriculum and assessment-divergent approaches in the framing of knowledge

Aligning curriculum and assessment—divergent approaches in the framing of knowledge

Barbara Ormond

Abstract

This article examines the different outcomes that have emerged in the framing of knowledge for senior secondary school subjects through the process of aligning curriculum and assessment. By tracing paths of development in the Alignment of Standards Project for history, art history, classical studies and social studies it can be seen that differing approaches to the nature and inclusion of knowledge have created distinctions between those subjects that enable a high degree of teacher autonomy in the selection of knowledge, and those that are more prescriptive. The relationship between curricula and assessment is examined, giving consideration to current debates about the “voice of knowledge” (Young, 2012, p. 139) in curricula and the blurring of boundaries between the means of acquiring knowledge and the disciplinary knowledge itself.

Introduction

In the process of aligning a recent New Zealand curriculum document with assessment qualifications (the Alignment of Standards Project), the manner in which disciplinary knowledge for senior secondary subjects has been framed and prescribed has taken surprisingly divergent paths. Some explanations for the variance can be found through considering differing interpretations of Ministry of Education directives, different developmental processes and differing responses of teachers to proposed changes, but these do not fully explain the different outcomes. This article considers the varied approaches taken during the process of alignment for history, art history, classical studies and social studies in order to explore how this variability may have occurred. While teacher autonomy in selecting knowledge is at the forefront for history and social studies, a prescriptive, detailed knowledge framework has been developed for art history, and classical studies occupies the middle-ground.

Fundamentally important, and at the heart of the ideas raised here, is that there is no clear understanding of, or debate over, the place of knowledge in curricula. Wood and Sheehan (2012) argue, in respect of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) that “in a curriculum that is designed to contribute to building a ‘knowledge economy’, neither the place of knowledge in The New Zealand Curriculum is clearly defined nor is the question of ‘what is knowledge?’ in the context of the curriculum addressed” (Wood & Sheehan, 2012, p. 17). The following analysis of outcomes for different subjects during the Alignment Standards Project (Alignment Project) suggests a random approach where knowledge may, on the one hand, be nationally “prescribed” in detail while, on the other hand, be so broadly stated that it becomes the domain of individual teacher choice. Leaving the important question of what constitutes knowledge to individual subjects, or to whim, or chance, in the alignment process, has led to variable notions of the role and value of disciplinary knowledge in learning. Young (2012) recognises this as a global phenomenon. He comments upon the apparent “divorce in much contemporary writing where thinking and learning are treated as if they were processes that can be conceptualised as educational goals independently of what the thinking and learning is about” (p. 149). Lambert (2011) argues that at play are “cultural and economic influences that value skills over knowledge and the acquisition of discrete competencies and ‘learning how to learn’ over understanding” (p. 248). “Content is often held up as a separate concern from skills, even a possible distraction” writes Counsell (2000, p. 61). Therefore, the process of the Alignment Project, through its focus upon aligning assessment to a broadly framed curriculum document, reinforces an international trend in favouring procedural knowledge over the disciplinary knowledge that underpins thinking and learning.

The key sources of evidence for this article are Ministry of Education documents relating to the development of the Alignment Project and online comments made by teachers through their teacher association networks. The article also draws upon my role as a teacher educator in the relevant four disciplines and upon personal involvement in the development of achievement standards for art history during the Alignment Project.

The Alignment of Standards Project

New Zealand secondary educators are midway through an emergent phase of change where The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) is being implemented in the senior years of secondary school (Years 11–13). This represents the final phase of development for a curriculum that became mandatory for earlier years of schooling, Years 1–10, in 2010. Through an Alignment of Standards Project the intent of the curriculum is being expressed in revised achievement standards for the National Certificates of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualification. Through aligning and connecting the components of curriculum and assessment, the new standards will attest to the “vision”, “principles”, “values”, “key competencies” and “achievement objectives” prescribed in the curriculum. Stemming from the Alignment Project is a marked variability in the way different disciplines have framed or specified the content or contexts in which skills or concepts are to be assessed. While the Ministry of Education signalled the possibility of different outcomes through its statement that “the appropriate relationship between content and context varies between subjects” (2009, p. 5), the overriding message to subject writing groups during the development phase was that the new curriculum was “intended to be enabling so that standards should as far as possible be written in such a way as to provide schools and teachers the opportunity to select contexts which are best suited for the students” (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 5); that is, nonspecific and nonprescriptive. For the internally assessed components of these subjects under NCEA, it has been the practice that contexts not be specified. Any prescriptive content applies only to the externally assessed standards which are examined in end-of-year nationwide examinations. Therefore, the discussion here, over variability of approach, applies to the externally assessed standards.

What is inexplicable is the manner in which the variance came about, with some subjects being led to abandon close prescription of content while other subjects have retained or created new highly detailed requirements for content. It is difficult to explain such differences in terms of the nature of the disciplines, or in terms of teachers’ preferences or in terms of the views of project leaders. Variability also appears in the manner, and level, of consultation over such critical matters.

The terms content, context, knowledge, prescription¹ and skills are relevant here as they may be interpreted in multiple ways. The Ministry of Education, for the purposes of the Alignment Project, referred to “content” as “defining the concepts, skills and knowledge required to achieve the standard, and context as the vehicle that might be used to deliver the content” (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 5). Under this definition, achievement standards would describe “content” while “contexts” would remain outside the standards² and, preferably, be a matter for individual teachers in order to allow the flexibility intended by the broad curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 6).

Therefore, if “content” is defined as the assessable “concepts, skills and knowledge”, we need to analyse how this has been interpreted by members of the subject writing groups and to what extent commonalities or inconsistencies are evident. Given that the terms concepts, skills and knowledge were not separately defined by the Ministry of Education, they had the potential to be interpreted in different ways. Knowledge, for example, may come under the umbrella of conceptual understandings and be framed in broad terms. It may imply genres or bodies of knowledge or, alternatively, it could refer more specifically to knowledge of time, place, people, institutions etc.—what one might refer to as “topic knowledge”. Skills may be interpreted in terms of cognitive development through skills such as critical thinking and problem solving or more procedurally with skills such as essay writing, analysis of sources and drawing conclusions.

Under The New Zealand Curriculum, “content” is primarily defined by the achievement objectives set for each year level; for example, content is implied at Level Six for Social Studies through the two objectives:

Understand how individuals, groups, and institutions work to promote social justice and human rights, and

Understand how cultures adapt and change and that this has consequences for society. (Ministry of Education, 2007, Level Six Social Sciences—Social Studies)

In this case it is concepts (e.g., social justice, human rights, culture, adaptation) that fall within the definition of “content” and knowledge of these concepts would be gained in relation to selected contexts, such as a social justice issue in a particular nation state. Such an approach provides wide scope for teacher or student choice of context yet simultaneously promotes the narrowing of the use of any given context through the application of the lenses of “working to promote social justice” or “understanding change and consequence”.

For the discipline of history, Hunter (2008) noted early on in the Alignment Project that it had “became apparent that the Levels 6–8 Ministry of Education history Achievement Objectives were going to become the history curriculum by default in the absence of research or a position paper to support the development” (New Zealand History Teachers Association (NZHTA), 2008b, weblog, p. 5). The achievement objectives Hunter is referring to are potentially applicable to a wide selection of contexts and all historical eras. In effect, The New Zealand Curriculum, in relation to history, could, therefore, be regarded as the antithesis of a curriculum—where the terms are so broad as to prescribe nothing. The conception for history, therefore, relies heavily on teacher selection and judgement. The absence of particulars of knowledge that must be taught and learned may reflect concerns about “the damaging effects of excessive or prescriptive content” (Counsell, 2000, p. 60) or, put more positively, the desire for flexibility in curriculum and assessment to determine courses relevant to the learners in a particular community.

Counsell notes that “most history teachers would agree that knowledge is important, that both knowledge and skill matter … yet whenever ‘content’ is compared with ‘skills’ as a teaching objective it continues to get a bad press” (2000, p. 60). Reflecting a global trend in history teaching, the focus of the achievement objectives is upon engaging students in participating in the procedural skills of “acting like an historian” and engaging in “historical thinking”. Students work towards acquiring disciplinary expertise through giving consideration to matters such as historical significance, reliability of sources and understanding different perspectives and interpretations of the past. Unlike social studies, the achievement objectives are not specific in suggesting a particular field of inquiry such as human rights’ issues, so there is not quite the same degree of steerage towards a specific knowledge focus:

Understand how the causes and consequences of past events that are of significance to New Zealanders shape the lives of people and society, and

Understand how people’s perspectives on past events that are of significance to New Zealanders differ. (Ministry of Education, 2007, Level Six Social Sciences—History)

However, as with social studies, the same narrowing of the assessment focus to meet the specific wording of objectives applies. The two objectives for Level Six for History require that students angle their response to “cause and consequence” or to looking at “people’s perspectives”. For history, such focuses (causes, consequences, historical significance) are often referred to as second order concepts, or procedural concepts (Sheehan, 2011, p. 35) and applicable to diverse historical contexts. First order concepts, or substantive concepts (Sheehan, 2011, p. 35), on the other hand, such as colonialism, revolution, and nationalism, have a relational location within historical content as they are normally of specific relevance to specific eras or geographical localities (e.g., the French Revolution, colonising New Zealand). While under the former prescriptions, first order concepts had a greater role to play as the cement that linked topics together (e.g., the theme of Nationalism, International Relations and the Search for Security for Sixth Form Certificate (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 1998)) and as the foundation for topic direction, such concepts are not “prescribed” within the new framework. Therefore, it is the skills of the historian that are given the position of prominence while the knowledge that may emerge from applying such skills is less certain. “It therefore seems easy to state that the content is somehow unimportant, and that it is just the ‘domain’ in which we practise things” (Counsell, 2000, p. 61). This concern was raised at a meeting of the Auckland History Teachers Association, in September 2008, where it was stated that there “appears to be placing of assessment ahead of the curriculum which is completely UNACCEPTABLE. This makes the achievement standards the de facto history curriculum” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 11).

In the process of aligning the curriculum achievement objectives with the achievement standards, the dominance of a history of events has emerged. All six of the standards at both Levels 1 and 2 of NCEA contain a focus on an historical event,³ although two of these standards do provide a choice of an event or a place. This has the potential to exclude important histories; for example, those for which ideas, trends or the agency of individuals or institutions have greater significance than events. History studies that explore gender roles, or investigate local communities or enhance knowledge of cultural interaction, the workings of government etcetera are excluded except where they serve as a context for a significant event. History teachers from one secondary school wrote that:

too many standards require study of ‘an event’. This rules out studies on people or areas, or even multiple events. History should not be about single events in isolation from each other. Also field research (e.g. looking at causes of death in a cemetery …) is much more difficult since these rarely reflect a single event. (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 8)

Hunter contends that The New Zealand Curriculum conception of history is limited. The “focus on events” … “embed(s) familiar practice and contextual preferences” while “international thinking in history education” looks at matters such as “interpretations of agency” … “historical thinking” … and the “socially constructed nature of history” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, pp. 5–6). So while not prescriptive, there is an implied constraint and narrowing of historical study through the focus upon events, the rationale for which has not been fully explained.

For both social studies and history, the alignment process has achieved the close alignment between The New Zealand Curriculum and assessment that was sought by the Ministry of Education. However, a further variation influencing the relationship between The New Zealand Curriculum and assessment through the achievement standards is that not all senior subjects are directly represented in the curriculum. While history and social studies are framed according to the achievement objectives stated in The New Zealand Curriculum, art history and classical studies have no subject-specific objectives. Art history falls within the visual arts objectives where only some aspects of the objectives can be seen as directly applicable. Objectives such as “Apply knowledge of a range of conventions from established practice, using appropriate processes and procedures” (Ministry of Education, 2007, Level Six, The Arts) were designed for art practice and, of the seven achievement objectives for visual arts at Level 1 only three were selected as suitable for alignment with the art history standards. Because the visual arts objectives serve a multi-purpose of directing both visual arts and art history, the requirement evident in history and social studies for complete alignment between achievement objective and achievement standard was not applied to the revision of the art history standards. For example, the Level 1 Art History standard “Demonstrate understanding of links between context(s) and art works” (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, AS91017) does not mimic the wording of the curriculum achievement objective “Investigate and analyse the relationship between the production of art works and the contexts in which they are made, viewed and valued”. The differences resulting from the lack of subject-oriented achievement objectives for art history provide some clue about the different approaches to knowledge specification. While the achievement objectives for social studies and history indicated possible content in broad terms, the visual arts achievement objectives were not expected to shape the direction of art history so closely. Alternative means could be sought for clarifying knowledge expectations.

Similarly for classical studies, there are no achievement objectives in the Curriculum and the only mention of the discipline lies in the statement that “the range of possible social sciences disciplines that schools can offer is much broader, including for example, classical studies” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 30). Therefore, alignment for classical studies involved minimal links to The New Zealand Curriculum. Instead, learning objectives have been written in conjunction with, rather than following from, the alignment process. As a conjunctive instrument rather than a driver, the learning objectives have a similar framing to the achievement objectives in the Curriculum but are to be found in a separate document, the Teaching and Learning Guide for classical studies (Ministry of Education, 2010). Alignment for classical studies, therefore, had the potential for greater freedom. The subject writing group could simultaneously determine the critical features of the discipline for both curriculum and assessment purposes. While it is clear that the wording of the history and social studies achievement objectives (using Level 1 as the example) significantly shaped the wording and form of the revised achievement standards, those subjects without dedicated achievement objectives have been less constrained.

The framing of knowledge

So what effect has alignment with the curriculum had upon the framing of knowledge? The answer is complex as it lies beyond this linear relationship between curriculum and assessment. Further considerations of process and input are involved.

Social studies

Because social studies has many disciplinary roots and has traditionally been, at junior levels, a subject with substantial scope to design autonomous programmes, albeit within broad national curricula, there was an expectation from the outset that teachers would have a high level of freedom to determine content selection. Social studies is a subject that only became nationally available at the senior level and under the umbrella of NCEA from 2002. While, upon the introduction of NCEA, the other subjects largely retained their existing knowledge components, social studies was devised after the publication of the Social Studies in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1997) document. The first versions of the NCEA standards were, therefore, written from the outset with curriculum achievement objectives in mind. The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and process of alignment has, nevertheless, created significant change. The reduction from 10 achievement objectives at each level of the 1997 curriculum to two achievement objectives at each level in the 2007 curriculum suggests a reduction in content coverage to, for example, a dual focus on human rights and cultural change at Level 1.⁴ This illustrates a narrowing of the choice of content with, for example, studies of the environment or resources no longer an appropriate preparation for candidates in the NCEA examinations.

History

While freedom to choose content has been the practice of senior social studies for a decade, history is undergoing a more significant transformation from assessment on specific, defined topics to complete autonomy to choose any historical focus and any period of history. Such a shift adopts the spirit of the broader, more flexible Curriculum and the dictum of the guidelines given to subject writing group members:

The intention of the new curriculum for Years 11, 12 and 13, is to be ‘enabling’ and allow schools maximum flexibility in learning programmes within the mandated framework of the principles, values and competencies. (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 4)

The writing group for the history standards adopted the Ministry of Education’s strong recommendation for flexibility of contexts and when presenting options for the matrix of achievement standards noted in their consultation document that:

At present NZHTA have designed four potential matrices … These are the result of hours of discussion and debate in the executive and feedback from the Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications officials. Please bear in mind that there (are) no prescribed topics from 2010. (NZHTA, 2008a, p. 1, emphasis added)

Therefore the consultation document, in respect of knowledge requirements for history, appeared as a fait accompli. The document created considerable debate among teachers. The views of 14 history teachers (mainly heads of departments) along with the record of the summarised comments of circa 70 teachers who attended a meeting of the Auckland History Teachers Association, were posted on an NZHTA weblog. This amounted to over 8,500 words of comment. While some teachers may have been willing to embrace a future in which they could teach the history of their choice, the weblog postings contain no comments in support of this approach. Instead they express dismay at the loss of specified topics. The inevitability of examinations designed with “generic” questions and “decontextualised sources”, was seen by many as an unacceptable trade-off for freedom. GB (teachers’ names have been abbreviated) commented that “so far, in what is supposed to be a consultation we have been given no substantial alternatives to discuss—it is all decontextualisation and resultant generic questions—these are really the two major issues which determine all else … We have been shown no model allowing for prescribed units or modernised New Zealand content” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 1). DK commented that core content “is rightly regarded as essential for the creation of informed citizens who have some knowledge of their own country’s history and of the key events of world history”. He urged teachers not to “blindly accept what the MOE [Ministry of Education] has laid down” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 9).

MW titled her response “Caged and Cuckolded” and commented that:

It seems the feedback we really want to give—support for contextualised externally examined standards balanced by ‘free range’ internally assessed standards—will be dismissed as unacceptable and timid. The ‘Battery Hen’ analogy fits our current mood nicely. We feel caged in by poorly written Achievement Objectives and Ministry/NZQA directives. I am not going to peck away at the few kernels, in the form of the matrices, that are being presented to us … when what I want to do is to be able to challenge the whole philosophy … The restrictions placed on the realignment team have led to a Clayton’s choice—no choice. (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, pp. 12–13)

While there was recognition that the existing topics were out of date and narrow in nature (Sheehan, 2011, p. 41), having had their last substantial review in the late 1980s, having no topics at all was clearly regarded as problematic. John Downes, Chair of the NZHTA Executive, noted in September 2008 that “most of us are still having difficulty coming to terms with” the concept of no prescribed topics (Downes, 2008, p. 1). Grounds for concern fall into several main categories—concerns over generic questions, concerns over narrowing of topic coverage, and concerns about equity.

Since the inception of NCEA in 2002–3 generic questions had been a feature of the examinations for the standards assessing interpretation of historical sources (Levels 1 and 2) and for the Level 2 essay and perspectives standards. Their success or otherwise had been a matter for debate for a decade and any move toward a freer topic choice would embed this further. Some teachers expressed concerns at the difficulty students have had in accessing and addressing generic questions while MW commented upon the experiences of students dealing with “unnecessarily contorted questions in an effort to introduce variation from one year to the next” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 13). She also reported on the tendency to address them through “memorised essays” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 13). NH summarily stated that generic questions have “been a disaster at Level 2” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 3). He argued that they pose difficulties for consistency in marking and questioned “how it will be possible for external exams to be marked effectively” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 4). JP reiterates this view saying that “some students prepare answers for topics that markers are not qualified to assess” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 4). This raises the issue of equity, if some content has the potential to achieve better results because of its obscurity. JP argues that experience has already shown that students who addressed one of the less commonly taught topics were able to achieve higher grades:

… to many markers (these) are obscure topics. We have documented evidence that shows that a student’s essay on the American Revolution gained an Excellence from very poor History. Huge generalisations unsupported by evidence, errors of fact and, under informed scrutiny, barely reached Achieved. If we are allowing all courses to be decontextualised we run the risk of these same gross distortions of History. By de-contextualising you are only encouraging the proliferation of weak and inaccurate History. (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 4)

The reduction of knowledge was also raised as a concern. GB expressed his view that learning in history was “becoming more narrow in its topic coverage leading to a decrease in New Zealand content” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 1). While this suggestion appears to contradict the requirement for history, as stated in both the curriculum and standards, that selected content be “of significance to New Zealanders”, GB explains that previous curricula steered selection of topics to include some New Zealand history (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 1). JP explains this narrowing in terms of how little knowledge is needed to meet assessment requirements:

Worse, they are able to focus on one section of the topic for the exam … The Diem Regime in Vietnam is a good example of that. Students can write an extremely high quality essay … by just using the period 1954 to 1963 … students can use that narrow context for their preparation. (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 4)

Therefore, a reading of the extensive correspondence on NZHTA’s weblog clearly indicates teachers’ concerns at the direction in which history was being taken, yet their voices were unable to create change on the primary question of specifying knowledge. DK “challenged the MOE to provide us with content. Their reply was to duck and weave, saying they could not prescribe” (NZHTA, 2008b, weblog, p. 9).

Art history

So, if the discipline of history has been led down a path where prescribed content was never a viable alternative, how can the very different path trekked in the process of alignment for art history be explained? While the art history achievement standards conform in having a generic character that enables all art periods, styles and media to be included, in separate documentation the artists, key ideas and contexts which will be examinable for the externally assessed standards are prescribed. In the abbreviated example for a new Level 3 topic given below, it can be seen that a high degree of certainty on the knowledge that may be assessed is provided for both teachers and learners.

Figure 1 Art history guidelines for the assessment of NCEA Level 3 external standards 2013 (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2012, p. 6)

Unlike history, where it was signalled early in the Alignment Project that defined topics would be going, throughout the alignment process for art history there was silence on the matter of content. The writers of the achievement standards suspected that the Ministry of Education would, at some point, confirm the need to abandon prescribed content in accordance with Ministry statements, but the focus of the writing group remained on revisions to the achievement standards. It, therefore, came as a surprise to some members of the writing group and to teachers across New Zealand when content was prescribed for the externally assessed Level 1 achievement standards. The required content was indicated to teachers through the assessment specifications document which outlines the nature of the exam for each subsequent year and so was notified just a few months before implementation in 2011. The confidentiality of the process was complete, with no notification of how the decisions were made, or by whom. There are several possible explanations for the late decision to specify content. One possibility is that when the appointed examiner came to design a sample paper he/she was unaware of the Ministry of Education’s directives and preferences for flexibility of contexts. This can perhaps be explained in relation to division of responsibilities for development and implementation. The Ministry of Education had responsibility for the alignment process whereas the NZQA has responsibility for implementing the revised externally assessed standards through nation-wide examinations. Another possibility is that the examiner decided that the most suitable way of examining the standards was through prescribing content. However, that would still leave the question of why that was permissible when other subjects had seemingly been expected to abandon such specification. A further possibility is that the existence of Art History Guidelines (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2006) was sufficient reason to pursue the writing of additional guidelines for Level 1 Art History.

Achievement standards were written for Level 1 of NCEA for art history for the first time⁵ under the Alignment Project and the subject writing group designed the standards with the intention that the content remain open for teachers to select and devise their own programmes. This was seen as important as the standards were likely to be taken up by students doing practical art programmes, or by combined Years 11 and 12 classes or by students doing a multidisciplinary programme such as a combined classical studies and art history course. However, the original intention that all Level 1 standards be internally assessed became untenable during the alignment process. Due to the requirement that some standards be externally assessed to enable students to be eligible for “course endorsement”⁶ two Level 1 standards were modified as externally assessed standards. While this adjunct certificate endorsement issue may seem insignificant, the decision to include art history in the national end-of-year examination process due to the externally assessed standards may explain the consequential decision to prescribe content. It may have led the appointed examiner(s) for Level 1 to manage the externally assessed standards through specifying artists and content in the same way as Levels 2 and 3 had historically been examined.

Teachers made little comment on this unusual event, in all likelihood because Level 1 was new, had no previous prescription and because very few schools offer Level 1 art history. Greater comment, indeed outrage, was voiced when the same unannounced process was followed for Level 2. The newly prescribed content was placed on the NZQA website, without the usual circular from the NZQA to alert teachers. It first came to the notice of most teachers on 10 November 2011 when one art history teacher discovered it and notified teachers via Arthistorynet. The following is a sample of the responses in regard to the process in discovering the new Art History Guidelines:

I take huge issue however with the lack of consultation (read none); the last minute nature of their introduction (November … four weeks before term 4 finishes?); the lack of any kind of flagging through NZQA circulars and the fact that the new guidelines are to be implemented in a year when our means of assessment are substantially altering … Someone or some group has put a lot of work in here, but these are far-reaching changes … and I am very—let’s put it colloquially—gobsmacked that such changes could have been developed without New Zealand-wide discussion, so late and so—well, surreptitiously really. (CC)

I honestly cannot see how people will be ready to use these next year. (SC)

Am wondering if anyone has had a chance to take a look at the Level 2 Guidelines which seem to have miraculously appeared on the NCEA website. It is going to have some rather large implications in terms of our content at Level 2. (OW)

Is it not absolutely ridiculous that these content changes have occurred without any national consultation or notification to schools or teachers? (TF)

(Comments posted on Arthistorynet, 10 November 2012)

The online comments made by teachers elicited the following response from the NZQA:

The online publication of the guidelines preceded the circular which should arrive in schools shortly. While the development of the 2006 guidelines for the Level 2 and 3 external standards was funded and facilitated by the Ministry of Education, there is no provision for replacement guidelines or subject-wide consultation for the new external standards.

NZQA has worked with contractors to develop guidelines for the new Level 1 and 2 standards to provide teachers with some guidance and to enable the planning of assessment in 2011 and 2012 respectively ... (Adrienne Waghorn, NZQA, Arthistorynet, 14 November 2011)

The NZQA’s response comments upon the restricted timeline for publishing the information and suggests money constraints as a contributor to the lack of consultation. However, it does not provide much insight into the very notion of prescribing content for art history and there is the suggestion that the former pattern of having Art History Guidelines to define content, in the manner of those produced in 2006, has been continued without being questioned.

It also transpired that draft content guidelines had been written for Level 3, and due for implementation in 2013, but the NZQA responded to the outcry about the lack of consultation for Level 2 and, in early 2012, appointed an art history teacher to organise surveys, run meetings nationwide and conduct online discussion over the form the Level 3 guidelines should take. Teachers’ responses have clearly shaped the new guidelines. The original draft guidelines have been largely overturned. The process for establishing the future direction of knowledge in art history has therefore been an ad hoc process with the development of Levels 1 and 2 falling under the radar of public scrutiny while the more overt development for Level 3 has been a direct consequence of teacher-driven demand for greater input and transparency.

Furthermore, it appears that the defining of content has not been considered in the light of expectations for other similar disciplines such as history or classical studies. When contrasted with the seeming inevitability in history that topics and prescribed content would go, and against the backdrop of Ministry of Education guidelines which encouraged flexibility for teachers in selecting contexts, the continuation of prescriptive guidelines for art history is not totally explained. The Ministry recognised that there would be variability of approach, noting that “the appropriate relationship between content and context varies between subjects” (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 5) but it seems that highly prescribed content would only be accepted in exceptional circumstances:

As far as possible, teachers should be allowed flexibility in selecting contexts, unless the context is of such importance to a proper understanding of the subject as to warrant prescription, or unless, in the case of externally assessed standards, a lack of restriction on context would be likely to compromise the ability of markers to reliably, confidently and accurately assess candidates’ performance. (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 6)

It may be that the latter was regarded as the justification for content prescription for art history but there has been little transparency in conveying reasons for the particular decisions for subjects, or explanation for the variability between subjects. It must be noted, however, that art history teachers are not voicing concern at the existence of the Art History Guidelines (effectively a prescription), but rather at the process of determining the Guidelines. Teachers and students may be well served by having greater certainty of the content that will be examined.

Classical studies

Classical studies, having no need to align to any achievement objectives due to the discipline’s exclusion from The New Zealand Curriculum (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, AS 91203), has defined content in terms of concepts and broad themes. This is against a tradition of being a highly prescriptive subject where knowledge of the classical world was recognised as the quintessential element and where examination has, until recently, focused upon the detail of set art works, prescribed literary texts and historical knowledge. Upon the introduction of a standards-based assessment system in 2002, classical studies stood out as a subject that did not emphasise assessment of skills but instead assessed knowledge. The explanation for this lies in the very nature of the discipline—a multidisciplinary study of the art, literature, philosophy and history of the classical world which draws upon the skills of its contributing subjects. Until recently, it retained examination structures that were very similar to its former Sixth Form Certificate and Bursary models in providing a combination of short answer, paragraph answer and essay answer formats. However, on the basis that short answer questions and responses were not sufficiently rigorous, or equitable with similar subjects, pressure from the NZQA led to a change in 2009 where short answer questions were abandoned. The Alignment Project has taken this further. With no prescribed topics, examination questions are to be written in relation to general features and themes. For example, “empire and power” is a theme examined for the Level 2 achievement standard “Examine socio-political life in the classical world” and any classical context may be used.

Whereas art history teachers were outspoken in their concerns about the process followed in producing the Art History Guidelines (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2012), classical studies teachers voiced their concerns at the particulars of draft examination papers. They appear to have accepted the loss of specificity concerning which art works, texts or historical eras will be examined but demonstrate concern that some of the content they have traditionally taught may no longer be able to be used in future and that the sample included material they had not formerly taught. Raising particular ire was the loss of Roman domestic architecture and replacement with public architecture.

In an open email to the Ministry, the Auckland representative for the New Zealand Association of Classical Studies Teachers (NZACT) wrote:

One of our main concerns was … the exclusion of Roman private architecture in Pompeii. Almost unanimously, the feeling at the conference was that this was a complete mistake … As a group, Classics teachers just don’t see this present course as teachable. There is not enough information for us to teach, certainly a lack of resources and a lack of time to teach an entire course on Roman public architecture. (Paul Artus, email circulated to classical studies teachers, 20 July 2011)

Further concerns were raised concerning the emphasis on some content areas in the sample examination when compared with others; for example, an emphasis on social life over politics, Greek over Roman.

Correspondence between members of the teaching community and the National Assessment Facilitator (NAF) for Classical Studies at the NZQA reveals critical underlying differences of viewpoint. On the one hand is the view of a New Zealand curriculum that is broad and where knowledge is conceived of as a vehicle for developing competencies in thinking, using language and texts, participating etc., rather than an end in itself. On the other hand is the classical studies teachers’ view of their discipline as concerned with valuable knowledge. Teachers point out some difficulties of applying generalised knowledge of contexts in examination circumstances. In relation to particular draft examination questions for the art works standard, the Auckland representative for NZACT wrote that:

The questions seem to assume that the students have … studied that particular plate (art work) … yet if they have not studied this specific work they would have no idea about its intended purpose in the lives of the people of the time at the time it was created … Another example would be the temple plans. How is a student meant to know what makes this temple aesthetically pleasing if they have just a plan … The only way they would be able to answer the question satisfactorily is if they had studied it in class properly and seen different views … If plates are going to be used then either the questions need to be generic and not specifically directed to that plate, or there HAS to be a list of set works from which the plates might be drawn. (Paul Artus, letter to the NAF, 17 June 2011)

There appeared to be a contradictory message in that some of the sample examinations implied that students required specific topic knowledge, despite the absence of prescribed topics. There was concern, therefore, that the examination may become a lottery. “Is it … pot luck?” asks Megan Peterson, classical studies teacher, Classical Studies (email circulated to Classical Studies teachers, 17 June 2011). While not explicitly stated, there is also the sense that the “generic” questions act as a reductive influence on knowledge—that somehow we expect students to provide evidence of their acquisition of accurate knowledge but that we do not explicitly require it and hope that they can bring suitable contexts to bear upon their responses. This echoes concerns expressed by history teachers about “generic questions”.

The NAF responded that:

The key factor … is that there is a change of emphasis from recall of knowledge to a more skills orientated paper because a skills orientated paper is [a] much stronger assessment method for use in a written examination. (Steve Bargh, 28 June 2011)

This subscribes to, and supports, the shift in focus from “particular content knowledge to emphasising particular cognitive skills, from substantive to cognitive procedural knowledges” (Yates & Collins, 2010, p. 93). The difficulty with this notion in respect of classical studies is that it is the period under study (the classical era), that is the basis for the subject itself while skills in interpretation of classical writings, or art or ideas are not particular to the discipline and are an amalgam of the skills of disciplines such as art history, history and literature studies.

In contradiction to this theme-based and more generic approach for classical studies NCEA examinations, is the surprising return of the formerly prescribed Level 3 topics for the scholarship examination—New Zealand Draft Scholarship Assessment Specifications 2012. Seven topics, deriving from current practice, are listed (e.g., Alexander the Great, Virgil’s Aeneid, Roman Art and Architecture) enabling specific examination questions to be written. This suggests that there is an expectation that teachers will continue to teach the same topics as they have done in the past when the revised achievement standards are introduced for Level 3 in 2013. Although the Scholarship examination sits outside of NCEA, the candidates for the examination are normally those who are also sitting Level 3 NCEA. In practical terms, a teacher would select the topics in order to prepare students for both Scholarship and Level 3 NCEA. Since a teacher is unlikely to investigate contexts beyond those specified for Scholarship, by default the implication is that the former topics remain in place.

Conclusions

Although commonalities can be found in the expressions of concern about how knowledge has been addressed during the alignment process, it is noticeable that very different outcomes emerged. While not fully explained, some of the variability appears to relate to the time, place and manner in which concerns were expressed. History teachers constructed carefully written responses on a weblog as part of a consultation within the Association to influence the writers of the standards, yet their voices and arguments failed to convince, and the teachers interpreted that failure to achieve change as the strong arm of the Ministry of Education directives. Classical studies teachers accepted that theme-based questions were coming but complained about directions expressed through sample examinations. They spoke through the vehicle of conference debates and negotiated changes through the National Assessment Facilitator at the NZQA. Art history teachers were left in the dark about the prescription of content until Levels 1 and 2 were a fait accompli so their voices were those of loud complaint about process. Nevertheless, out of this emerged recognition by the NZQA of the need for consultation over Level 3 content and contexts for art history. Not fully explained, however, is the ability of art history to prescribe in detail and therefore transcend the clear expectation of the Ministry that contexts would be in the hands of teachers, departments and schools.

The emergence of such a wide spectrum in approaches to knowledge, from a highly prescriptive format for art history to a thematic framing of knowledge for classical studies, and teacher autonomy in content selection for history and social studies, suggests that the question of the place of knowledge in curriculum and assessment has yet to be adequately addressed. With the current emphasis on generic skills for developing the thinking, self-managing, participatory student for the “knowledge age”, and focus upon subject-specific skills for assessment, greater consideration needs to be given to the relative importance of critical disciplinary knowledge. The New Zealand experience contributes to the debate and dilemma over the roles teachers and educational policy makers play in determining what is taught and also serves to illustrate how processes involved in curriculum and assessment decision making, in this case the Alignment Project, can unexpectedly produce quite different responses.

References

Artus, P. (2011, 20 July). Email circulated to Classical Studies teachers.

Classical Studies Teachers Network. (2011, June–July). Emails.

Counsell, C. (2000). Historical knowledge and historical skills—A distracting dichotomy. In J. Arthur & R. Philips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching (pp. 54–71). Abingdon: Routledge.

Downes, J. (2008). Message from NZHTA—Alignment Project update and other matters.

Hunter, P. (2008). Submission to the Executive of the NZHTA. NZHTA’s weblog. Retrieved from http://nzahta.wordpress.com/

Lambert, D. (2011). Reviewing the case for geography, and the ‘knowledge turn’ in the English National Curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 22(2), 243–264.

Ministry of Education. (1997). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Standards review guidelines for subject associations. Attached to Memo to Principals of 28 June 2009.

Ministry of Education. (2010). Senior secondary teaching and learning guide—Classical studies. Retrieved from http://seniorsecondary.tki.org.nz/Social-sciences/Classical-studies

Ministry of Education. (2011). Arts online, Arthistorynet. Retrieved from http://artsonline.tki.org.nz/Communities/Arthistorynet

Ministry of Education. (2012). New Zealand Draft Scholarship Assessment Specifications, Retrieved from http://ncea.tki.org.nz/New-Zealand-Scholarship,classical_studies_scholarship_assessment_specs_draft_jun12.pdf

New Zealand History Teachers Association. (2008a). NZ history matrix, Retrieved from www.nzhta.org.nz/NZ%20History%20Matrix.html

New Zealand History Teachers Association. (2008b). NZHTA’s weblog. Retrieved from http://nzhta.wordpress.com/

New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (1998). Sixth form certificate prescription, History. School qualifications handbook, regulations, prescriptions. Wellington: Author.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Art history achievement standard 91017. Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/search.do?query=Art+History&view=all&level=01

New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2012). Art history guidelines for the assessment of NCEA level 3 external standards 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/art-history/levels/

New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Classical studies achievement standard 91203. Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/search.do?query=Classical+Studies&view=all&level=02

Peterson, M. (2011, 17 June). Email to Paul Artus, circulated to classical studies teachers.

Sheehan, M. (2011). ‘Historical significance’ in the senior school curriculum. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 46(2), 35–45.

Wood, B., & Sheehan, M. (2012). Dislodging knowledge? The New Zealand curriculum in the 21st century. Pacific-Asian Education, 24(1), 17–30.

Yates, L., & Collins, C. (2010). The absence of knowledge in Australian curriculum reforms. European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part I, 89–102.

Young, M. (2010). The future of education in a knowledge society: The radical case for a subject-based curriculum. Journal of the Pacific Circle Consortium for Education, 22(1), 21–32.

Young, M. (2011). The return to subjects: A sociological perspective on the UK coalition government’s approach to the 14–19 curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 22(2), 265–278.

Young, M. (2012). Education, globalisation and the ‘voice of knowledge’. In H. Lauder, M. Young, H. Daniels, M. Balarin, & J. Lowe (Eds.), Educating for the knowledge economy? Critical perspectives (pp. 139–151). London: Routledge.

Notes

The author

Barbara Ormond is a senior lecturer in curriculum and pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at The University of Auckland. Barbara lectures in the Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Secondary), preparing students to teach History, Social Studies, Art History and Classical Studies. Barbara’s research interests focus upon developing and evaluating learning strategies that enable students to effectively interpret images. Barbara has been an examiner, moderator and marker of national examinations in Art History and History. She has also been President of the New Zealand Art History Teachers’ Association.

1Prescription is a term used in this article to describe circumstances where content to be covered is stated in a written document. This applies to art history where areas of study are specified in fairly precise terms in the Art History Guidelines (NZQA, 2006). Formerly, prior to the introduction of NCEA in 2002, the term prescription had been used to describe the documentation that specified content for each subject (e.g., School Certificate Prescriptions).

2Prior to revisions made under the Alignment Project the achievement standards commonly listed topics or prescribed contexts for the external, examinable, standards in the Explanatory Notes.

3An historical event is defined in the Explanatory Notes for AS91005 Describe the causes and consequences of an historical event, as “either a specific historical event in time, or an historical development or movement”.

4For example, included in the 10 achievement objectives in the Social Studies Curriculum 1997 Level 6 were “how and why people organise themselves to review systems and institutions in society”, “how people find out about the past and how records of the past reflect particular experiences and points of view”, “how and why individuals and groups make decisions about the use of resources, goods and services”. Therefore, there was scope for a greater range of contexts to be studied.

5Level 1 Art History had existed under NCEA but was examined through internally assessed unit standards, rather than achievement standards. During the Alignment of Standards Project all art history unit standards were modified to take the form of achievement standards, or deleted where overlap with achievement standards occurred. Content for the former Level 1 unit standards was open.

6Course endorsement provides recognition for a student who has performed exceptionally well through gaining 14 or more credits at Merit or Excellence standard. At least three credits are required from externally assessed standards.