Trends in education suggest an increased focus on the assessment and teaching of thinking skills in the future.
To assess problem-solving, creative and critical thinking skills on NAPLAN would fit with broader movements in education internationally, but there are some questions to address first.
Creative thinking, learning and play have a valid place in the curriculum, but are difficult to test.
Literacy and numeracy can be assessed through creative tasks, like creating a drama performance or an electrical circuit, without hindering creativity.
Getting rid of NAPLAN would remove a distraction from the classroom and allow teachers more time to understand and address the needs of the students.
Getting rid of NAPLAN would allow teachers more time to respond to and address the needs of their students, rather than teaching to the test.
We may need to rethink how NAPLAN is used, but overall it’s an important tool for researchers and policy makers.
While we may need to rethink how we use NAPLAN, it is an important and useful tool for researchers and policy makers.
We need to look for more engaging and relevant assessments that use the tools available in an online environment for re-envisioning NAPLAN.
Assessments need to be relevant to the real world and test more complex skills to better predict competency, standards of literacy and teaching.
Asian Australian students tend to spend more time studying than Anglo-Australians.
Students from the Philippines, China and India consistently achieve better results at school than their Australian-born counterparts. This is due to a number of factors, including parents' values.
Even when teachers are supporting specific learning difficulties (such as dyslexia), it’s important to expand boys’ repertoire of positive reading experiences.
Moving away from direct instruction and teaching to the test and towards making sure boys enjoy reading will improve outcomes.
The average year nine Indigenous student in a very remote area scores about the same in NAPLAN reading as the average year three non-Indigenous city student, and significantly lower in writing.
Using equivalent year levels provides us with a clearer picture of the gap for Indigenous students, who can be up to an equivalent of 7.7 years behind their non-Indigenous counterparts in writing.
Funding debates will likely spill into the new year.
The year 2017 is finally coming to an end, so here's a wrap of our coverage for the year, with bonus quiz!
NAPLAN results should also be considered in relation to other standardised assessments, which do not always tell the same story.
The results are in, and student achievement on NAPLAN has plateaued in literacy and numeracy, with some areas of improvement.
Despite improvements in the national average score, the 2016 PIRLS report confirms many Australian children continue to be left behind.
The results of an international study into reading skills offer reason for optimism for Australian students. But tragically, too many children are still being left behind.
Standardised assessments can inform what teachers teach, based on evidence of student learning.
Standardised tests are a powerful tool for building an evidence base of what works to guide education policy.
For a student who is blind, the obvious test adjustment is providing a braille test if they are proficient in braille.
Standardised tests restrict how well students with disability can do, which reinforces the idea that there are things they can't do that children without disability can.
If we fail to recognise that standardised tests are metro-centric, we will continue to produce disadvantage for rural students.
Results from the 2017 NAPLAN results showed very little improvement since the test was introduced 10 years ago.
NAPLAN is good at measuring some aspects of education, including knowledge difference between demographics, but has not produced a positive effect on student learning outcomes.
After 10 years of minimal breakthroughs, NAPLAN doesn’t seem to be going anywhere but online.
NAPLAN is great at tracking changes over time and between demographics, but not so great at measuring what factors effect change, engagement or creativity.
Will marking algorithms really reward good writing?
High grades might be awarded to papers that show the structural features of highly persuasive writing -- papers that follow the “persuasion script”, so to speak.
“Slow” movements promote concepts of mindfulness and a consideration of process as well as outcomes.
Pressure on schools to make rapid improvements discourages deeper thinking about long-term solutions. Education can learn a lot from "slow" movements.
The preliminary results of NAPLAN 2017 are out, and the news isn’t good. The annual test of our students’ literacy and numeracy skills shows that not much has changed since 2011, coincidentally – or not…
The ability to write quickly and effortlessly allows children to focus on translating ideas into writing.
Writing is a fundamental outcome indicator of learning across subjects and grades. The latest NAPLAN results tell us we need to do more to empower children with these skills.