curriculum, pedagogy and assessment
Key Features of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment and their links
I created the image below to show my beliefs with regards to pedagogy. When implementing the curriculum, it is important to use a range of teaching strategies and I believe that there is a place for all of these strategies however, a balanced approach must be taken whilst also considering the learners in my classroom. Willms (1992, as cited in Marzano, 2007, p.4) states that no amount of research will provide educators with a "model that would apply to all schools in all communities at all times". A perfect example of this is the way in which Indigenous students learn.
Effective implementation
of these strategies will also be dependent on the use of effective curriculum
design and classroom management strategies. When planning, I use Wiggins and
McTighe’s (2005) three stage approach of backward design. This method
demonstrates how curriculum, pedagogy and assessment are interlinked. When
using backward design, I begin with the curriculum in order to determine the
desired outcomes. Following this, the relevant formative and summative assessments
are devised and these inform the pedagogical instruction that is required in
order for the learners to meet the desired outcomes.
The image above outlines
the types and examples of assessment that I have seen in schools.
Assessment, as defined by Cohen and Spenciner (1994, as cited in Losardo & Norari Syverson, 2011, p.14) is the “process of observing, gathering, and/or recording information”. I believe that all of these forms have a place in our education system and similar to pedagogy, I think a balanced approach is necessary.
Formative assessments allow me to gauge the level of understanding in my classroom and therefore it will inform my future planning so the needs of my learners are met. Similarly, the summative assessments will allow me to gauge understanding and determine which areas some students may still be experiencing difficulty with following the completion of a unit of work.
I am a strong believer in authentic assessment as it allows the learner to apply their knowledge and skills to real world tasks which results in the students perceiving their learning as more “relevant, meaningful and engaging” (Brady & Kennedy, 2012). Furthermore, it suits a range of learning styles and abilities. I have seen some examples of this in the schools I have visited however through experience with my own children, it seems to be more prevalent in high schools. As a future teacher, it is my goal to ensure that authentic assessment tasks are provided to my learners.
Standardised testing has its benefits, particularly tests such as Informal Prose Inventory (IPI) and Progressive Achievement Test (PAT). If the data is analysed and used correctly these tests allow monitoring of student progress in maths, comprehension, vocabulary and spelling. These assessments are relatively low stake as there are no political influences in the preparation and administration of such tests. NAPLAN on the other hand is a high stakes standardised test that serves to inform policy makers in their future decision making within the education system (ACARA, 2011). In our current audit society, governments expect schools and teachers to demonstrate that they are meeting the desired standards and are improving student performance and this is measured through the NAPLAN data (Morris, 2011).
Assessment, as defined by Cohen and Spenciner (1994, as cited in Losardo & Norari Syverson, 2011, p.14) is the “process of observing, gathering, and/or recording information”. I believe that all of these forms have a place in our education system and similar to pedagogy, I think a balanced approach is necessary.
Formative assessments allow me to gauge the level of understanding in my classroom and therefore it will inform my future planning so the needs of my learners are met. Similarly, the summative assessments will allow me to gauge understanding and determine which areas some students may still be experiencing difficulty with following the completion of a unit of work.
I am a strong believer in authentic assessment as it allows the learner to apply their knowledge and skills to real world tasks which results in the students perceiving their learning as more “relevant, meaningful and engaging” (Brady & Kennedy, 2012). Furthermore, it suits a range of learning styles and abilities. I have seen some examples of this in the schools I have visited however through experience with my own children, it seems to be more prevalent in high schools. As a future teacher, it is my goal to ensure that authentic assessment tasks are provided to my learners.
Standardised testing has its benefits, particularly tests such as Informal Prose Inventory (IPI) and Progressive Achievement Test (PAT). If the data is analysed and used correctly these tests allow monitoring of student progress in maths, comprehension, vocabulary and spelling. These assessments are relatively low stake as there are no political influences in the preparation and administration of such tests. NAPLAN on the other hand is a high stakes standardised test that serves to inform policy makers in their future decision making within the education system (ACARA, 2011). In our current audit society, governments expect schools and teachers to demonstrate that they are meeting the desired standards and are improving student performance and this is measured through the NAPLAN data (Morris, 2011).
As a future teaching professional, I believe I
can make a difference by:
- addressing the curriculum through a range of teaching strategies that engage students in higher order, inferential thinking and
- developing authentic and differentiated assessment tasks to allow ALL students with the opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned and therefore have the opportunity to experience success.