Baseline data

Begin to collect evidence and data and come to the next session ready to share your preliminary findings about the nature and extent of the student challenge i.e. using your baseline student data and evidence

For the overall challenge facing our cluster, see my previous blog post.

9PKr average PAT reading comprehension score from the start of the year is 3.55. 

No students scored below 2, which is ridiculous because one student in this class does not speak or read English and is below a Level 1 in e-asTTle. The top reading student in the class was absent and no score was recorded for her. 

The average pre-test score in Read Theory for the class was 1.77. 

Motivation for reading questionnaire results are published below: 

My baseline self-reflection checklist is also attached below:

Tools and measures for my inquiry

Describe the tools/measures/approaches you plan to use to get a more detailed and accurate profile of students’ learning in relation to that challenge. 

Literature review:
Google scholar

Current data:
Y8 and Y9 PAT reading comprehension, writing and maths scores

Current practice:
Student interviews, teacher interviews, random sampling of Y8 timetables and activities online

Forming interventions:
Synthesised findings from literature review and current practice to identify opportunity for change and improved teacher practice.

Case study 1:
Motivations for reading questionnaire - pre and post test around intervention

Case study 2:
Read Theory pre-test and post scores

Case study 3:
Teacher self-reflection checklist pre and post Case study 3. 
Read Theory pre-test compared to post-Case-study-2 as well as 
Read Theory pre test compared to post (both) Case studies 2 and 3. 
Comparison between shift caused by Case study 2 and 3. 

Additional pre/post test data for Case study 2 & 3:
PAT Term 1 score and PAT Term 4 score 2019

CoL Blog 4

My wrist is still sore so more handwriting!
I didn't crop this because I thought it was quite artistic!

CoL Blog 3

CoL Blogs 1 and 2

I injured my wrist over the holidays and typing irritates it so here's my handwritten blog post:

ROUND TWO - Intro - Learn - Gather Evidence

Now the new junior curriculum is being implemented, it’s time to focus on how it is impacting achievement of Maori students in junior science.

The area identified as impacting learner achievement most significantly in our cluster is the ability of our students at all year levels to read and write.

What is the problem, what is currently being done, what is working, and how can we improve?

There are six Maori students in my year 9 class. In answer to the question "what is the problem?" - let us look at their reading/writing e-aSSTle data. 

Students arriving at secondary school should be reading and writing at Level 4 or 5 of the curriculum. 

Only Student 15 is reading and writing at a level appropriate for a Year 9. 

Student 12 is writing at a Year 9 level but their reading is not, while Student 1 is able to read at a Year 9 age but their writing is at the level of an average New Zealand Year 5 or 6 student. 

What is currently being done? At Tamaki College we use the Accelerated Reader programme during Year 9 and 10 to increase the reading mileage of students, and scaffold their reading to a level that is both challenging yet achievable to them.

Students are guided to select books at the appropriate level (based on their initial scores and suggested Zone of Proximal Development) for them. Each day students read for a minimum of 20 minutes and during one English period a week they read for 50 minutes. When they complete a book, students complete a short quiz on the content of the book to check they read and understood it; score too low and they will be guided to an easier book, while a perfect 100% score means the book was too simple for them! The AR programme aims to extend students' reading abilities.

What is currently being done in science is largely up to the teacher. When I designed the new junior units I've tried to include some 'wide and deep' literacy units and each theme has readings attached to it. Now that I've progressed further through my inquiry into supporting literacy I realise there is so much more that can be done.

How can we improve?

That is the question that I will be focussing on during my second round of inquiry this year. I will still be focussing on Achievement Challenge 1: Raise Maori achievement through the development of cultural visibility and responsive practices across the pathway as measured by agreed reading targets for Years 1-10 and NCEA for Years 11-13.

However, I am also interested in writing, so some of that may creep in too!

I have given my second-round inquiry the title "Raising Maori student achievement by improving literacy in Science."

Here's the link to my initial outline.

Gathering Evidence - Student Data & Anecdotes

Can changes to cultural visibility and responsiveness in the junior science program improve Maori student a) reading achievement and b) enjoyment, confidence and achievement in science.

I fear this will not be a "short and sharp" post but I'll include a TLDR (too long didn't read) summary at the bottom!

It's time to look at some student data! I will share the data for junior student reading and writing levels in a later post, when I look for trends in students across the board rather than focussing on science.

I would like to share some senior Biology student data and anecdotal evidence that has been in the forefront of my mind while thinking of improving the junior science program. I have felt for some years that many students arrive in Biology under-prepared. 

This may be a school-wide issue due to reading levels and comprehension, but I feel there is also room to improve junior program to connect with students more and build understanding and achievement across two years. 


Senior Biology 2016 (I was absent 2017):

In 2016 nine students out of 21 failed their first NCEA Level 2 Biology assessment, which is to create a biological drawing of an organism using a microscope. This involves labelling different cells or features of cells, and describing or explaining their function in the organism's life and environment. My reflection at the end of the year was this: 

"Students did not enjoy being forced to remember/recall information rather than copy/transcribe it - a trend that continued throughout the year with effort for the exam."

Information that students were required to recall was not overly complex. In fact, some of the most basic Achieved-level labels contained similar information to what I was teaching Year 7 students at a school in England in 2017 - yet many of my students were unfamiliar with the basic structure of a cell. Some could not understand the difference between cell structures (e.g cell walls) and organelles (tiny organs) found inside a cell. I would love if students could arrive with a little more biological knowledge, and that is something that a change in the Y9 and 10 junior curriculum could support.

In 2016 five students of 14 (some were away on a two-week trip) failed a practical assessment, which is to design and carry out an investigation into the effect of osmosis on percentage mass change. My reflection at the end of the year was this: 

"2015 students found understanding valid testing and controlled variables difficult. 2016 students also found this a little confusing, but there has been a lot of focus on valid testing and variables with the 2016 Year 11s, so hopefully next year's 12s will be more confident."

Writing hypotheses, methods, identifying variables, averaging and graphing data and writing conclusions are skills that students require across all three science disciplines. It would be useful if students arrived knowing the basic expectations of a scientific support and what variables are. 

In 2016 eleven students of 18 failed an essay-like assessment where they were asked to evaluate the validity of information presented to the public. This was the assessment that had the highest fail-rate in 2016. My reflection was this: 

"Students were really, really reluctant to read, and then equally reluctant to write anything about their reading. To pass this assessment students must complete all three analyses. I believe the reading and broad completion requirements hindered success." 

Reading, comprehending and being able to discuss (in writing) key points from written texts were vital in this assessment. This requirement links to the Achievement Challenges 1 & 3 of Manaiakalani; relating to reading and writing. Interacting with texts (scientific or otherwise) from a young age and being able to convert understanding back into writing is a skill that would benefit our learners across all subjects.

In 2016 fourteen students failed their end of year exam, which was a Genetics exam. Only seven showed up. Of them, one gained Excellence, one gained Merit and two Achieved. The low attendance rate was a particular kick in the gut, as the exam is always a massive focus throughout the year. Having students not show up after you've invested hundreds and hundreds of hours into them is like a slap in the face. My reflection was this:

"In the 2016 Year 12 Biology class, only 2 students had previously passed the Y11 Genetics exam (one of those had arrived mid-year from AGGS). Only five of the original 22 students in the 2016 Y12 class had done ANY genetics at all in Y11 (those in 1101 during 2015).

Students from 1102 had done no biology at all since Term 3-4 in their Year 10, and during their Year 9 the Biology learning was called "Web of Life" and did not include any genetics. I am unsure what Biology was taught in their Primary schools before that. 1103 did some biology during their "Life Processes" internal but again no genetics. 1104 and 1105 also arrived with very little biological knowledge as many more achievable standards are selected from physics and chemistry."

Going back to anecdotal evidence again here (sorry, not overly scientific) but in 2016 I had to spend 2-3 weeks teaching Year 11 genetics to my Year 12s because without the basic understanding of what a gene was and what a chromosome was, it was impossible for them to wrap their brains around more complex concepts like meiosis and crossing over. Having a solid basis of learning from Year 9 and 10 (or even before) of concepts (or vocabulary) such as organism (living thing), habitat (an organism's home) or inherit (receive from parents) would make senior science so much easier - students could attack the learning of more difficult concepts without having to stop and learn the surrounding vocabulary. 

TLDR: I think that the room-for-improvement in senior biology results really makes the case for adjusting our junior curriculum. From student data and Biology-specific anecdotes I have identified that our junior curriculum could include improved: 

- Practicing valid testing, report writing, and identifying variables.
- Reading, comprehending, analysing and practicing writing about those things.
- Learning about cells and genetics.
- Building of biological knowledge across two years rather than separate units in each year.

Gathering Evidence - Student Voice

Can changes to cultural visibility and responsiveness in the junior science program improve Maori student a) reading achievement and b) enjoyment, confidence and achievement in science?

When Graeme Aitkin visited Tamaki College in 2017 he said enjoyment, confidence and achievement were vital to student success. In this post I look at the confidence of students in junior science.

What was student confidence in science like at the end of Year 9? At the end of 2017 I surveyed 16 Year 9 students from two classes.

Before we get into it, I should mention that some factors that may influence this data include:

• The 16 students surveyed were present during the final weeks of Term 4 while most of their peers (around 35 of them) were absent. This indicates to me they are the more dedicated, studious or supported students in Year 9, which may skew the data towards higher levels of reported confidence than would be true across all of 2017's Year 9 cohort.
• I went in as an unfamiliar face due to my year off in 2017, so students did not know me as a teacher at all. 
• While there was no teacher-student relationship to cause a power imbalance, there still may have been an adult-child power imbalance causing a shift in answers.
• Our lack of relationship could have made students more or less truthful; on one hand they would have no fear of their answers impacting our relationship, on the other they could have taken less care answering for a stranger.
• Pacific cultures place emphasis on being humble and gracious, so there may be a bias in the data with students presenting self-belief in their abilities as lower than they really think it is.

Here is the question that I asked:

The mean score across the 16 students was 6.2, which I took to mean something like "I'm OK I guess" or "I'm average; not great and not bad either." 

As another measure of confidence (although SO many factors could be involved in subject selection, such as career goals, interest, timetabling and unfortunately also their friend's subject selections etc) I asked this question: 

One student said they would take all three sciences, one of them said they would take two, two said just one science was on the cards and one had already made up their mind to take none. However, ten students said "maybe," showing that they are undecided in their junior years and perhaps indicating that they are still open to convincing throughout Year 10 and 11!