Technology Archives

Helping Your Students to Become Better Writers

Joanne Rossbridge & Kathy Rushton share a framework for improved extended response writing…

Introduction

Teacher knowledge about language and how it works is critical for not only developing dialogue around texts but can make explicit for students the strategies used by effective writers across subject areas. This requires understanding of the grammatical features of the common genres students commonly are asked to write in the secondary school.

This article looks at the extended response to support teachers to analyse student writing and examine both the language and literacy demands related to writing extended responses in secondary settings. The following outlines the approach and principles that are drawn upon in both a one-day and three-day CPL course entitled Conversations about Text in the Secondary School and Developing Dialogue about Text in the Secondary Schools respectively.

Making appropriate choices – Field, Tenor and Mode Framework for writing

Texts can be discussed using a framework developed by Michael Halliday (Halliday & Hasan, 1985) in which the three critical aspects of the register of the text, field, tenor and mode are utilised to analyse and understand how successful texts are constructed to reflect their context and purpose:

Field refers to the subject matter of the text and this of course will differ across and within subjects;
Tenor is the relationship established between the reader and writer;
Mode addresses the nature of the text itself and the role language plays within it.

When viewed together, all students can be supported to understand the range of language choices which need to be made to successfully realise the purpose of a text for the audience it is addressing.

For further explanation see Halliday & Hasan, 1985 and Rossbridge & Rushton, 2015.

This helps students to realise that careful reading and note-taking may address field but to meet the challenges of engaging an audience and establishing a clear purpose for their text a range of other language choices need to be made.

The following framework provides teachers with a time-saving and focussed way to provide the support that developing writers may need at all levels of text from word, clause, group and sentence to paragraph and text levels (Derewianka, 2011).

Choices in context: a case study from the ancients

The context for writing in secondary schools is provided by the subject areas. Students may be involved in field building through the focus on teaching content around a topic such as an example of The Ancient World in History. In addition to acquiring the field knowledge we also need to be explicit about who the audience may be that they are writing for as well as the relationship between the writer and reader.

The following examples show how the field of the writing may be similar but the tenor and mode differ. This can be seen by the more personal connection with the audience in Text 1 while Text 2 seems to convey more authority on the topic. In addition, the mode of the texts may differ in that the writing may be more spoken or written-like as evident in Text 2, which sounds more written-like or academic in the way the ideas have been packaged and organised.

Text 1

Have you ever wondered what life was like for women in Ancient Sparta? They had lots of power and could think for themselves more than some of the other women in other places in Greece.

Text 2

Spartan women had a reputation for strength and independence. They enjoyed greater freedom and power than women in other city-states in Ancient Greece.

This framework for considering and talking about language choices in context can provide the basis of a strong scaffold (Hammond, 2001; Vygotsky, 1986) for adolescent writers.

Writing pedagogy

The genre based pedagogy known as the Teaching Learning Cycle was originally developed by Sydney School genre theorists… [it] has proved a powerful resource for scaffolding literacy development, with numerous published units of work documenting and/or guiding its implementation. (Humphrey & Macnaught, 2011, p. 99)

The Teaching Learning Cycle includes building the field, text deconstruction, joint construction and independent construction. Our focus is on supporting teachers to undertake the more challenging text deconstruction and joint construction.

We consider that the critical dialogue about text occurs during text deconstruction and joint construction (Rossbridge & Rushton, 2014). In many classrooms, texts are modelled but the rich language about language, metalanguage, can only be developed when the teacher and students talk together about the language features of the texts they are reading or writing (Lemke, 1989).

For this reason, one of the courses involves the conversations about text that teachers can develop to support writing development (Rossbridge & Rushton, 2010 & 2011). By using the field, tenor, mode framework for writing, not just the field (content) but also the tenor (relationship) and mode (nature) can easily be the focus of these conversations.

What a conversation might lead to

The following transcript provides an example of the conversations which might occur between a teacher and students. In this example from a whole class joint construction the notion of perspective in History texts is explored by considering the development of the noun group to name participants in events.

Student: Dan would say he’s like a visitor because he wouldn’t say he is trespassing or doing anything wrong. He’d say he’s visiting and helping out his country.

Student: You probably know that their settling there as a new country.

Teacher: So are you saying he’s a settler?

Student: Yeah. Like saying he would know he’s not really going to be going anywhere.

Teacher: So, is he a visitor or a settler?

Students: Settler.

Teacher: What have we built? Dan, who was a young British settler. What have we just built?

Student: Noun group.

Teacher: Yes, we’ve built a whole noun group with an adjectival clause.

(See Rossbridge & Rushton, 2014 & 2015)

Key principles for developing a critical dialogue about text

The key principles for developing the critical dialogue about text are, in our view, language, the learner and the support or scaffold provided for the student. The teacher needs to be very clear about the language needed to write target texts as well as having a clear view of the purpose of talk in the classroom.
The dialogue can be supported by questioning, Think Alouds (when the teacher verbalises their thinking as they read for meaning to model the thinking skills required for comprehension) and other strategies which provide opportunities for talk and substantive communication.
The learner needs to be both engaged and supported to undertake risks (Hammond, 2001) if they are to master the challenges of writing an extended response in an academic context. The support needed is not just modelling but the ability to hand over the tasks to the students (Gibbons, 2002 & 2006) at the right point, the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Hammond, 2001; Vygotsky, 1986). This may require both micro and macro scaffolding when programming and teaching.
One of the most important understandings about language development is that it can be viewed on a continuum from spoken-like to written-like language, the mode continuum. At one end of the continuum is oral language which differs from written language mainly in its density. Written language is lexically dense in the sense that more meaning is carried in fewer words (Halliday, 1985). The challenge teachers face is to support students to develop the lexically dense texts which are valued in our education system.Written language is lexically dense in the sense that more meaning is carried in fewer words

Nominalisation and theme

Using the framework of field, tenor and mode two very useful tools for writing can be drawn upon. These are the features of nominalisation and theme which can be identified in texts. Students can be taught how to use them to make their texts more effective. Nominalisation is a resource that allows writers to change verbs, conjunctions and adjectives into nouns.

Making language more powerful

We should reduce mining near the coastline.

The reduction of mining near the coastline will result in greater preservation of coastal ecosystems.

In the example the verb group in the first clause has been turned into a noun group (nominalised) and placed at the front of the second clause in theme position. By doing this the main focus of the writing can be put up front, the writing sounds more written-like and by repackaging the first clause into a noun group the writer is able to add additional information.

Such conversation and dialogue around text enables students to take on knowledge about language in the context of texts and apply it to their own writing.

The use of these features relates to the genre of the target text (Macken & Slade, 1993; Martin & White, 2005; Martin & Rose, 2008). While unfamiliarity may initially challenge students, when teachers become adept at deconstructing both modelled and student texts even very young students are able to grasp the concepts and begin to utilise them in their writing.

Our CPL courses demonstrate a range of strategies for developing extended responses which include the effective use of these features and support students to master them.

References:

Derewianka, B. (2011) A new grammar companion for primary teachers. Newtown: PETAA

Gibbons, P. (2006) Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers (pp.59-70). London: Continuum

Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (pp.77-101). Portsmouth: Heinemann:

Halliday, M.A.K.(1985) Spoken and written language (pp.61-67). Victoria: Deakin University Press

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English (pp.238-245). London: Longman

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985) Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp.238-245). Victoria: Deakin University Press

Hammond, J. (Ed.) (2001) What is scaffolding? Scaffolding teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp.1-14). Newtown:PETAA

Humphrey S., Droga, L. & Feez, S. (2012) Grammar and meaning: New Edition. Newtown: PETAA

Humphrey, S. & Macnaught S. (2011) Revisiting joint construction in the tertiary context. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 34(1), 98-116

Lemke, J. (1989) Making text talk: Theory into practice. Columbus, Ohio: College of Education Ohio State University

Macken, M. & Slade, D. (1993) Assessment: A foundation for effective learning in the school context. In Cope. B & Kalantzis, M. (1993) The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. (pp.203-222) Bristol, P.A.: The Falmer Press

Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2008) Genre relations: Mapping culture London: Equinox Publishing

Martin, J. & White, R. (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. (pp.26-38) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2015) Put it in writing. Newtown: PETAA

Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2014) PETAA Paper 196 The critical conversation about text: Joint construction. Newtown: PETAA http://www.petaa.edu.au/imis_prod/w/Teaching_Resources/PETAA_Papers/w/Teaching_Resources/PPs/PETAA_Paper_196___The_critical_conversation_.aspx

Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2010) Conversations about text: Teaching grammar with literary texts. Newtown: PETAA

Rossbridge, J. & Rushton, K. (2011) Conversations about text: Teaching grammar with factual texts. Newtown: PETAA

Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press pp.xi-xliii

About the authors

Dr Kathy Rushton is interested in the development of literacy, especially in socio-economically disadvantaged communities with students learning English as an additional language or dialect. She has worked as a literacy consultant, EAL/D and classroom teacher with the DOE (NSW), and in a range of other educational institutions. Kathy is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney.

Joanne Rossbridge is an independent English, language, literacy and EAL/D consultant working in both primary and secondary schools across Sydney and Australia. She has worked as a classroom and ESL teacher, literacy consultant and lecturer in universities. Much of her experience has involved working with students with language backgrounds other than English. Joanne is particularly interested in student and teacher talk and how talk about language can assist in the development of language and literacy skills.

Technology Subjects Years 7 -12 Update – 2020 – Semester I

Alexander Stewart discusses the Technological and Applied Studies (TAS) courses in Years 7 -12 and brings teachers up to date on the changes and issues involved. . .

Between 2019 and 2020 Technological and Applied Studies (TAS) teachers in NSW have begun implementing eight new syllabuses which is the most significant release of new syllabuses in NSW since 1999. These new syllabuses include advanced technologies and Australian Curriculum content resulting in the need for TAS teachers to develop new programs, scope and sequences, assessment strategies, and to update their resources.

Technology Mandatory Years 7-8 Syllabus

The new Technology Mandatory Years 7- 8 Syllabus (2017) was implemented with Year 7 in 2019. In 2020 it will also be delivered to Year 8. This new syllabus has seen a significant change to Technology Mandatory content delivery in schools. The content has been adapted from the Australian Curriculum and includes the context areas of Agriculture and Food Technologies, Digital Technologies, Engineered Systems and Materials Technologies.

The introduction of computer programming (or coding) in Digital Technologies, using a general purpose programming language, has been a focus of the media and teacher professional learning. There is some concern the Digital Technologies’ outcome related to data, its representation and transmission has been overlooked in the noise about coding.

Many schools have used the new syllabus as an opportunity to refine their existing teaching and learning practices or to introduce wholescale change. The digital technologies content is the most significant change to this syllabus and requires almost all TAS teachers to undertake professional learning to adequately cover the outcomes and content. TAS teachers do need to be conscious of the fact that it is only being taught to Stage 4 level and not to Stage 6.

Years 7-10 Technology Syllabuses

In 2020 TAS teachers have begun implementing revised Years 7-10 Technologies syllabuses including Agricultural Technology, Design and Technology, Food Technology, Graphics Technology, Industrial Technology, Marine and Aquaculture Technology, and Textiles Technology.

All syllabuses include updated content and examples, of which many include advanced and emerging technologies. The Life Skills content in each syllabus has been aligned to the regular course content and the related Life Skills outcomes are included with the Stage 4/5 content to reinforce this alignment. The representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures has been strengthened in each syllabus and an interactive glossary has been provided to clarify key terms.

The key changes for each syllabus are outlined below:

Agricultural Technology	The Agricultural Technology syllabus content has been restructured to provide greater clarity for teachers. The syllabus retains the Core A and Core B structure The topics of Introduction to Agriculture and Agricultural Systems and Management, however, have been added respectively. The outcomes have been amended to allow schools the flexibility to deliver either Plant or Animal Enterprises in Core B.
Design and Technology	This syllabus has been amended to provide greater alignment with the new Technology Mandatory Years 7-8 course. The context areas now include Agriculture, Digital Technologies, Engineered Systems, Food Technology, Information and Communication Technology, and Materials Technology. The content has generally remained unchanged in the syllabus revision. Students undertaking the 100-hour course are required to complete a minimum of 2 context areas and 2 -4 units of work. Students undertaking the 200-hour course are required to complete a minimum of 3 context areas and 4-8 units of work.
Food Technology	This syllabus has been restructured to remove the core topics from both the 100-hour and 200-hour courses to provide schools with greater flexibility when delivering to vertically streamed classes. As a result, the number of focus areas to be studied has been increased to 3-4 in the 100-hour course and 6-8 in the 200-hour course.
Graphics Technology	In this syllabus some option modules have been removed to reflect changes in graphics technology. In the 100-hour course students are now required to study both core modules of Computer Assisted Design (CAD) and Instrument Drawing, and 1-2 option modules. In the 200-hour course students now study a total of 4-6 option modules in addition to the core modules.
Industrial Technology	Of all the Technology syllabuses, this syllabus had the most significant changes to the outcomes, content and module structure. Wherever possible the 50-hour modules have been combined into 100-hour modules to simplify course programming. The number of focus areas have also been reduced from 11 to 8 by removing Ceramics, Leatherwork and Polymers. The remaining focus areas have been updated to include contemporary content with examples that include advanced technologies. Students are still permitted to study two focus areas for the award of their RoSA. More focus areas may be studied if school resources and timetables allow, but only two focus areas can count toward a student’s RoSA.
Marine and Aquaculture Technology	This Content Endorsed Course has been updated to include contemporary content and examples. The structure of the course is unchanged.
Textiles Technology	This course has been updated to include contemporary content and examples. The structure of the course is unchanged.

Years 11-12 Technology Syllabuses

Assessment and Reporting

NESA has updated the Assessment and Reporting documentation for the three courses that involve production of a major project: Design & Technology, Industrial Technology and Textiles & Design. Advice on managing project work is now included for teachers who are teaching students with disability. The assessment and reporting documents can be found on each Stage 6 Syllabus homepage on the NESA website.

HSC Marking

Several TAS courses have experienced difficulties filling HSC marking positions. TAS Teachers are encouraged to apply to mark both written and practical HSC examinations. The professional learning from HSC marking a subject you have been teaching to Stage 6 is invaluable for improving your content knowledge. If you haven’t been HSC marking the ‘Meet the Marker’ sessions NESA offers for teachers to learn about HSC marking processes are worthwhile.

In 2020, NESA workshops have been organised (See EndNote [i] for more details.)

SHAPE

The SHAPE exhibition features a selection of exemplary Major Projects from HSC Design and Technology, Industrial Technology and Textiles and Design students from the 2019 Higher School Certificate examinations. (See EndNote[ii] for details of the exhibition.)

TAS Teacher Shortage

Many TAS faculties across NSW are struggling to find teachers to fill permanent, temporary or casual vacancies, with many schools no longer offering one or more TAS subjects due to a lack of qualified TAS teacher. One way to help alleviate this issue in the medium term is to promote TAS teaching as a career path to your students. The following universities offer courses that will accredit teachers to teach Technology subjects:

Australian Catholic University
Charles Sturt University
Southern Cross University
University of Newcastle
University Of NSW (Art & Design)

Additionally the NSWTF Industrial Arts Special Interest Group (IASIG) has been campaigning about this issue and plans to continue this campaign in 2020. [iii]

Syllabus Implementation Support

The DoE through the TAS curriculum website [iv] and various yammer groups has been progressively uploading resources to assist teachers in implementing these revised syllabuses. Teacher associations, private providers and other teacher networks have been providing professional learning, support and resources to help implement these syllabuses. The NSW Teachers Federation’s CPL is also providing a professional learning course covering most TAS courses on 30 March.

In 2020 there is a lot of revision, updating and opportunity to develop strong teaching programs with teaching resources reflecting contemporary technologies and teaching practices in our schools.

References and EndNotes:

[i]

HSC workshops In 2020, the following workshops have been organised (with registration link below):

Design & Technology:

21 March – Tamworth, 23 May – Port Macquarie, 19 September – Rosehill

Industrial Technology:

4 April – Coffs Harbour, 2 May – Wagga Wagga,

https://www.educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/teacher-accreditation/how-accreditation-works/teacher-accreditation-information-sessions

[iiSHAPE exhibition – The SHAPE 2019 exhibition opens at the Powerhouse Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences on 29 February 2020 and closes on 3 May 2020

SHAPE 2019 will travel to the Glasshouse Gallery in Port Macquarie in 2020. There will be a student workshop on Friday 22 May 2020, with a Design and Technology professional learning session for teachers on Saturday 23 May 2020.

– The SHAPE 2019 exhibition opens at the Powerhouse Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences on 29 February 2020 and closes on 3 May 2020

https://www.educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/about/events/hsc-showcases-and-events

[iii] For more details about the IASIG check the NSW Teachers Federation’s website. This Special Interest Group meets once a term in Federation House, Surry Hills and members can join a meeting via video conferencing. If interested contact the Federation’s Wagga Wagga office to speak to the officer in charge of the SIG.

[iv] https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/key-learning-areas/tas

From 2020 Alex Stewart has been appointed as Head Teacher TAS at Pendle Hill High School. Previously he has been a Senior Curriculum Officer with NESA and before that worked for nine years as Head Teacher TAS/VET at Carlingford High School. He has been a HSC practical marker for Industrial Technology since 2012. In 2019 Alex presented for SHAPE hosted by the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences on Industrial Technology Major Projects and co-hosted a live video conference for regional and remote students. He has taught a range of TAS courses with a passion for Industrial Technology – Electronics, Graphics and Timber.

What Everyone Should Know About Coding

Ben Zunica demystifies coding for students and educators alike…

Coding for everyone

Computer coding has been taught in schools around Australia for the last 25 years in one form or another. However, it was mainly the province of senior high school and coding was only chosen by students who had a particular interest in the subject.

The increasing presence of algorithmic and automated technologies in school means that all teachers will need to become more familiar with principles of coding design in order to understand and determine how such technologies are used in schools.

Furthermore, in recent times, this way of offering coding has been turned on its head by curriculum authorities, with coding a compulsory subject for all learners in the junior years of secondary schooling, through the new Stage 4 Technology syllabus (New South Wales Education Standards Authority, 2017).

What is coding?

Computer coding is defined as “a list of step-by-step instructions that get computers to do what you want them to do” (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2017). While this definition is true, it is extremely broad and does not explain the heart of what coding is. The reason that it does not explain the heart of coding is that writing the step by step instructions comes at the end of the real cognitive work involved in computer coding.

Below is an outline of the whole process of computer coding:

Computer coding is a problem-solving process. The first step in computer coding is to define the problem that you are going to solve. This is an easy process if the problem is well defined, but can be difficult if the problem is ill-defined and/or not easily understood. Thus, the problem or question is a human one and necessary framing of the problem is open to human interpretation.
The second step in the coding process is finding patterns that occur that will solve the problem and expressing those patterns as processes in natural language. As an example, in Mathematics we can solve number sequences by finding the pattern.
2, 4, 6, __ , __
1, 4, 9, ___ , ___
6, 28, 496, ___
Finding these patterns are easy in the first two instances, but almost impossible in the last instance (they are called perfect numbers). The coder needs to find patterns in the problem that they are trying to solve and be able to write the patterns as processes if they are going to be able to code the solution on a computer. The patterns that are identified by humans do not always fit each situation perfectly, and, while being correct on most occasions, are open to flaws.
The third step is writing the processes using instructions that can be easily converted to computer code using a programming language. Coders normally use pseudocode, which is “like” a programming language but is more natural. It is sometimes called structured English.
The last step is coding the pseudocode using instructions that conform to a programming language.
It should be noted that steps 3 and 4 can be simplified using block-type programming environments that can write computer code for the user. This simplifies the process of turning processes into computer programs, but, in doing so, sacrifices the freedom of the coder by constraining their ability to modify block structures. Examples of block type coding are Lego EV3, EdWare for Edison and Scratch.

Introducing coding

Well, the good news is that we complete steps 1 and 2 in every-day life. All of us have problems to solve and find processes that we apply to solve them. So in fact you are already an expert! Initially, I would not go near a computer. When I start teaching people to code, I will not touch a computer for two to three weeks. I will start with showing students how to define problems, find patterns and write instructions that are unambiguous.

For me, the first step is to write the processes involved in making a piece of toast. It seems like a very well-defined problem with a simple pattern, but it is not. Each student will interpret the problem differently and go to differing levels of detail. Then I get into the kitchen with a recipe for spaghetti bolognaise. Some students will follow the recipe well and make a delicious meal, while others will not be so successful. Then I question them about why that is, focusing on process and ambiguous instructions that can be interpreted differently. Other factors which can be discussed include cultural experience and familiarity with what these foods are and what the end product is supposed to be.

Once these are done, I then move to simple problems from day-to-day life that are well defined. For example, what should a driver do when approaching traffic lights? When should I take an umbrella with me for the day? What is the five times table? Then move on to problems with differing levels of interpretation, such as when should I watch Netflix? Which subject should I study for first? For all of these I would get the students to write out the answer in natural language.

What to emphasise first

In the initial stages of writing answers to problems using natural language, there are three very important concepts that should be emphasised. They are:

The inputs and the outputs. Make a very clear connection between what goes in and what must come out. Having a clear knowledge of these will help you greatly in defining the problem correctly and determining the processes required to create the output. For example, when completing the spaghetti, make explicit that the ingredients are the inputs, the bowl of bolognaise is the output and the recipe steps are the processes. Talk about this for each problem.
All of the processes that you look at will conform to three control structures or combinations of them. Processes will be a sequence, such as making a piece of toast, a decision (sometimes called branching), like deciding whether to take an umbrella, or, a repetition of actions, like when writing the five times table, you are always repeating the thought of adding by five.
What data do you need to keep? So, in the example of deciding what to study, you need to have the data of an examination timetable in order to make the correct decision on what to study first.

Emphasising these three concepts will make coding on a computer much more simple, as coding involves converting inputs to outputs, the preservation of important data using variables and writing code as sequences, decisions and loops (repetition).

Programming language?

Once you can understand and solve simple problems using processes expressed in natural language, then it is time to start “real coding”. Convert one of your problems into pseudocode (this part will be the most challenging for students) and then use that pseudocode to write code in the programming language of your choice. The coding is not as challenging as you may think. Anything from your pseudocode you do not know how to put into the programming language can be googled, and, in the vast majority of cases, an answer to your problem will be available. Most computer coders are not worried about changing programming languages because they know that if they get the problem solving right, then converting it to a programming language is relatively easy.

Conclusion

One of the worst mistakes anyone can make with coding, algorithms and automation is to assume it is all about computers and copying and pasting slabs of code. This is not coding, and ultimately it will lead to frustrating experiences as students realise that they are still unable to code, and teachers may find the outputs of the coding do not solve complex human problems, or worse, create new problems.

A much richer experience is what I have outlined above. In seeking to understand this process, you are well placed to give students tools to solve different kinds of problems, which can ultimately be coded using a programming language where this is appropriate. In addition, we will not become reliant on one programming language or mystified by coding, but have skills that can be transferred to a multitude of different languages and situations.

Whilst engaging in such low technology, initial processes may be less thrilling, less expensive and less magical, if you stay strong and do the intellectual work first, we can all reap the benefits later.

References:

Australian Government. Department of Education and Training. Learning Potential. (2017). What is Coding? Retrieved from https://www.learningpotential.gov.au/what-is-coding (December 9, 2018)

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2017). Technology Mandatory Years 7-8 Syllabus. Retrieved from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-area… (December 9, 2018)

Ben Zunica is currently undertaking PhD studies at Monash University, focusing on IT and Mathematics education. He has taught IT and Mathematics to secondary students in both NSW and Victoria over the last 15 years. Ben has been a Senior Judge Marker, a member of the HSC examination committee for Software Design and Development, and a member of the Board of ICT Educators of NSW.

Building Confidence and Success in Stage 6

Khya Brooks suggests an approach to the HSC which can reduce everyone’s anxiety…

On the day my first HSC classes’ results were released, I was nervous and excited. However, I did not expect the reactions that I witnessed.

Many people turned to me and said “Congratulations. You did so well”, as though I had just sat the tests myself. Meanwhile, some of my colleagues were sitting with their head in their hands saying “I didn’t even get one band 6. What happened?” The rest of the day was spent listening to colleagues criticise their own practice and try to justify their classes’ outcomes to themselves; “Oh, I should have focused more on this area in the syllabus…” and “If only I had thought to revise this case study more thoroughly”.

What I learnt that day was to internalise the HSC results as though they were my own. I learned that my classes’ success somehow translated into how valuable I was as a teacher. The day was not spent celebrating, it was spent critically reflecting. Sure, this is great practice for long-term improvement, but what I have found is that it has also increased the pressure experienced by teachers. I have noticed that this pressure is then often transferred onto students, resulting in unnecessarily increased anxiety throughout the school.

I argue that this approach is reflective of a growing individualistic and negative culture within society and therefore teaching; which positions individual teachers rather than school systems or society more widely as solely responsible for student outcomes. This anxiety is reinforced by constant questions from the school executive, such as “Did you differentiate enough?”, “Are you providing enough scaffolds?”, “How many band 6s will you get this year?”

There is often too much pressure on many of the adults and, subsequently, many of the children at school.

I thought school was supposed to be joyful!

What to do?

So, I decided to actively address this cultural shift. I wanted students to own their own learning, rather than assuming it was all my responsibility. I began to reshape my programs, assessments and my overall practice. The more confident and successful my students became with their skills, the more confident and successful I felt within my practice. Our collective anxiety melted away and school days became more positive.

I found this new approach enabled me to have a better range of measures to gauge my success as a teacher. Rather than relying on quantitative numbers at the end of the HSC, I established a clearer set of procedures that allowed me, and the students themselves, to better measure our progress.

Below are some practical strategies that have helped me in achieving this cultural shift in my classroom, with a view to empower learners and improve their confidence, and ultimately, their success. I will focus prominently on the strategies utilised with my Society and Culture classes, but they are strategies that are easily transferrable to other subjects.

Please note, I work in a partially-selective public school in South-West Sydney. This means I have a large range of students; from high to lower ability, from advantaged to disadvantaged backgrounds, and from the disengaged through to some ‘over workers’. I have found that these strategies have assisted all of my students. For this reason, they should be applicable in almost any school context.

Strategies to develop a culture of student-driven learning

No summary, no marks

A strategy I have implemented is to withhold marks from students after they initially receive their assessments back. I encourage students to read through their feedback, and write a summary outlining what they need to work on, and how they intend to improve a particular skill in future assessments.

Once they do this, I provide them with their mark. This is a way to maximise student engagement with feedback. Also, students tend to keep these summaries and read over them before submitting future drafts.

Specific student-led feedback

I no longer accept copies of drafts from students seeking copious feedback. I found that quite often I would have read a draft several times before it came to marking it, and it was exhausting, time consuming and students generally still made similar mistakes in later assessments (indicating it was not as effective as I wanted it to be).

As a result, I developed a feedback matrix to use with my classes. The matrix outlines a three-step feedback system where I give specific feedback at set times and students are required to actively engage with it. The steps are outlined in Image below or click here to view.

Image 1 – Feebdack Matrix

There can be many benefits to using the matrix. As students use the marking criteria to develop specific questions for their feedback, they self-identify areas they thought they were not as strong in. For teachers, this means no longer spending copious time fixing tiny issues. Instead, we are able to provide wider feedback that students then identify in their own work. Also, students can easily see if their ‘limitation’ was someone else’s strength, and they can seek more help from one another.

Grouped feedback activities

Following the submission of a formal assessment task, I allocate each student a shape based on the marking criteria. Each shape is representative of a skill they should aim to actively improve. I then dedicate a lesson to improving those skills by grouping students by shape around the room, and each ‘shape group’ completes an activity dedicated to improving that skill. For example, I gave a student a triangle to indicate that they needed to better synthesise their research. I then had a triangle station, where all students that received the triangle worked on an activity where they ‘blended’ primary and secondary information together to identify conclusions. Students then practised writing these conclusions into paragraphs, to improve this skill further.

Strategies to develop specific skills

Writing

To improve student writing, I developed an acronym (shown in Image 2 below) focussed on sentence starters. Whilst there are many popular paragraph structures around, this approach focusses on the sentence level and students tend to find this more visible. Over the course, students begin using different sentence starters, eventually utilising the acronym as an editing checklist rather than a structure. It has been hugely successful across all stages and courses and has also been adopted by various other faculties and schools.

Image 2 – Writing Acronym

Once this acronym is introduced, I often develop an activity where students read various responses and highlight the different elements using different colours. The responses are usually related to course content, so that students actively learn relevant information through the process. We then discuss which responses were better and why, and students rewrite one of the poorer examples using the structure themselves. Often, I will then have students ‘highlight’ one another’s responses to begin to foster a peer marking culture.

I also use the highlighting activity as self-guided feedback through the course. Students learn to highlight their responses and identify whether they have used too much description, or if they need to embed more examples.

Applying concepts

In many subjects, applying concepts is integral. I scaffold this skill in a multitude of ways.

The concepts are colour coded in my classroom, and are all displayed on the wall.
Each lesson, I have students identify the various concepts that were discussed in class. Through this, students learn that a lesson can cover elements of a concept without the teacher explicitly stating it, and so they begin to look for opportunities to make these connections themselves.
I provide students with paragraphs from previous responses. Students identify two concepts that would enhance the paragraph, and rewrite the paragraphs with the concepts applied. They then peer mark one another’s responses.
Randomly, I will pass each student three cards, one with a ‘fundamental’ concept, one with an ‘additional’ concept and one with a ‘related’ concept. Students are then given one minute to prepare, and then discuss a key point of the case study using all three concepts. It helps to revise content, and enhances students’ ability to apply concepts appropriately.

Strategies to build a culture of success in the subject

One of my biggest successes has been developing a good rapport between cohorts. This has enhanced the mentorship my Year 11 students receive each year, and has also contributed to the growing profile and number of Stage 6 classes in my school.

Year 11 markers

Each year, one week before the Personal Interest Project (PIP) major work is due, I spend a day with my Year 11 students deconstructing exemplar PIPs and marking them collectively. This is a positive and voluntary experience, and the focus is about building up each other rather than putting pressure on Year 11 to produce Year 12 level work, or, of criticising older students.

Once students feel more confident in their understanding of the requirements of each section in the PIP, I then have them ‘mark’ draft Year 12 PIPs. This provides an array of advantages, such as my Year 12 students are provided with additional feedback, my Year 11 students have a better understanding of the skills required of them to achieve higher results, and I use the opportunity as a checkpoint to ensure all students have finalised their PIP at least a week prior to submission day.

Q&As

Each year I ask a number of my previous Year 12 students to come and speak to my new Year 12 students. The new group develop questions they want answered and my older group provide hints, tips and pieces of advice. Often, the older students offer to assist with PIP topics or research too.

Student developed questions

Lastly, following each topic, I have students map past HSC questions to the syllabus dot points and concepts. Students then develop a question for the topic, by mixing two dot points and adding a verb or integrating a concept. Finally, students add their question to a shared document and everyone selects three questions to respond to for practise.

This empowers students to develop their own resources for revision (I also get a bank of new question ideas). Often students will then show the question designer their response, and this suggests more collegiality between the students, as the class becomes more focussed on achieving great marks for everyone rather than personal or individual success alone.

Building up each other

It is important to note that I am very explicit with my students about the skills they learn, and how each of these strategies empowers them as learners. What I have noticed after integrating the strategies listed above is that students become less reliant on me to feed them information and are much more active about their own development. This allows each of them to feel confident and ultimately enables them to succeed as a class. It also makes it easier for me to measure how well they develop essential skills. It is this development that I value most in my teaching, knowing my students have come so far, and guiding them to continue to learn and grow more confident even when they are no longer in my classroom.

Khya Brooks currently teaches in Social Sciences at Elizabeth Macarthur High School. She has conducted workshops at the Australian Geography Annual Conference, worked in collaboration with local schools to develop higher-order-programs for the Australian Geography Curriculum, conducted research and had it published on behalf of the Western Sydney University EPIC (Educational Pathways in the 21st Century) program and contributed to educational podcasts. Khya’s students have received awards from the Society and Culture Association for their outstanding accomplishments in examination and PIP components of the HSC course. She has also contributed to the sustained growth and success of Stage 6 classes in her school. Khya is currently refining her approach to higher-order-learning strategies, and is guiding a research cycle of inquiry within her school.

Technology You Can Look Forward To

Steve Delaney sees much to be excited about in the new Technology syllabus which is mandatory for Year 7 in 2019 and Year 8 in 2020…

Whenever teachers are presented with a new syllabus there are always mixed feelings of fear and excitement. The inevitable, “Oh, we’re going to have to make new programs!” and, “When are we going to have time to do it all?” statements are usually two of the first concerns that arise in faculty meetings.

There is good news.

Not much necessarily has to change. The current Technology Mandatory syllabus has allowed us scope to explore some innovative and engaging units of work, such as Bottle Rockets, Battlebots, Coding and Fantastic Foods, and these units map nicely to the new syllabus content requirements.

Hands-on

The increased focus on Engineered Systems and Digital Technologies may sound scary at first, but it really does set the pathway for including interesting units of work in your curriculum, and can act as an ideal pathway into Stage 5 subjects, such as iSTEM, IT Engineering, Design and Technology, IST and IT Multimedia.

The picture becomes even clearer if you complement these pathways with the flexibility in focus areas associated with the Materials Technologies context focus, and shape your curriculum to suit the needs of your students and the strengths of your faculty. In this way, the Materials Technologies context focus makes it possible to focus on particular ‘traditional’ hands-on subjects like woodwork, metalwork, polymers, graphics, electronics, textiles and more.

Things are getting exciting, right?

What else is cooking?

The addition of agriculture to the food focus certainly adds a twist to the traditional focus. However, ingraining that link and producing food and fibres as a part of the learning experience can really add some awesome experiences to how we deliver this aspect of the curriculum. My great hope is that this change assists us to improve students’ (and parents’) views on Food Technology as a viable, academic, Stage 5 subject option, as some tend to believe that this subject is just about ‘cooking’. So whilst we may only be talking about a change in Year 7 and Year 8 at the moment, there may be positive follow-on developments in this subject area which encourage more students to learn about the science of food and agriculture.

Keeping it real with coding

I guess the scariest part of the syllabus change for most is going to be coding. You can understand why. In a number of schools, computing subjects may not be taught in TAS and this is generally an area where our more experienced teachers may not be as experienced. However, there are cool coding options such as The Starlab Mars Rover and Lego ev3 Mindstorms. Scratch is also very easy to learn. It is free and students can create quite complex games using a range of ‘drop and drag’ style tools. There are also plenty of code-able robotic options starting to emerge too!

With each new syllabus we take the familiar and the new, and, together, we find a way to make the best choices for our students. I’m excited!

Steve Delaney is Head Teacher TAS at Bulli High School. He is the TAS Curriculum Network Illawarra Coordinating Teacher and Australian Aeronautical Velocity Challenge Coordinating Teacher.

Additional NESA support materials are also available here.