Thursday, February 9, 2017

NCEA Results Analysis 2016

It is that time of year again when the school asks all the teachers for the analysis of the NCEA results for their subjects.
I received an email today from my HOD reminding me that it is due tomorrow, so cue the mad panic tonight to get it finished. It had gone out of my head / mental to-do list as I had started it!!


These things take a bit of time to put together but it is always worth the effort. We need to look at the good and bad of what has happened in the previous year so we can move on this year to improve outcomes for our students.
To be honest, the not so good stuff is more useful than the good stuff. With the things that have gone well, we will continue to skip along with how it is, feeling happy with ourselves. The things that are "not so good" pull us up short and make us think. We can only improve our teaching and approach if we are honest with ourselves first.

The cliff notes version is :-

  • I intend to include a lot more SOLO structured learning activities so the analysis is so much more in depth. This will give easier access to merit and excellence.
  • More step by steps rewindable skills in the form of google slides, videos of the drawing board and recorded screen casts.
  • Use of checklists for both teacher and students.
  • Use of calendars and Google Plus communities for day to day instructions so students know what they are doing and can keep up if absent.
  • Hopefully all this will mean more self motivation within the class so I can get more one to one time.



So...warts and all... here is my analysis of last year's Design and Visual Communication results.

Tamaki College Technology Department 2016 NCEA Results
Design and Visual Communication

Overall

How many students gained the following number of credits at each level?
16 Credits at Level 1
14 Credits at Level 2
14 Credits at Level 3
All Students
5 / 9
7 / 12
0 / 3
Maori Students
1 / 1
0 / 3 (1 got 12, 1 got 3, 1 got 0)
0 / 1
What was the reason for this?
What worked well?
The students who achieved well, attended regularly and worked consistently when they were in the class. There are 3 students on 13, whose attendance was not as good but who worked well when they were in. 1 is student on 4 credits, but his attendance was really poor. The 1 student on 0 credits is very lazy and never finished anything.

I have broken the projects down into small tasks.

We did a lot of support work together in Google Plus Communities.

Students who did well were good attenders on the whole. They worked well in the class and mostly finished their work. (4 of them especially, who got 21 and 24 credits).
1 student got 12 credits. He worked well when in the class, with support from me, but was a bit random as to whether he would attend.
4 students ( 3 on 3 credits and 1 on 0 ) have very bad attendance and their focus when in the class has not been good.

I have broken the projects down into small tasks.

We did a lot of support work together in Google Plus Communities.
All 3 students got 12 credits which were the 2 internal standards.

Absolutely terrible attendance from 2 of the students.
What needs to change to ensure that  more students gain this number of credits?
I am going to add more screencasts / drawing board videos so the students who miss lessons can still access the content. This will also help the students in the lesson to remind them what they have been shown.

I am going to add more SOLO supported activities so that the students have easier access to merit and excellence.

We will work in groups together wherever possible before they have to work individually.
I am going to add more screencasts / drawing board videos so the students who miss lessons can still access the content. This will also help the students in the lesson to remind them what they have been shown.

I am going to add more SOLO supported activities so that the students have easier access to merit and excellence.

We will work in groups together wherever possible before they have to work individually.
More practice with the drawing from observation and then using this as the starting point for ideas, as the external standard is based largely on this.

External Results

Level 1

AS Number - AS91063
External
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
8
1
6
1
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Doing freehand sketches in every project so there is a large body of work to send away for assessment.
Allowing students to use support grids for 3D sketching at the start of the year, so by the end, they were very confident with their 3D sketching without the support.
What would you change?
Need to include more cutaway and exploded drawings as well as work on analysis notes as this will improve the achievement up into merit and excellence.

Level 2

AS Number - AS91337
External
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
11
4
7
0
0
Maori Students

2
1
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
We made a specific effort to use design related terminology in general so when they wrote their analysis notes, the students were more readily able to use these terms to describe their work.
What would you change?
Use SOLO to support the analysis of the student’s design ideas. More in depth analysis will then be possible.

Level 3

AS Number - AS91627
External
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
3
3
0
0
0
Maori Students

1
1
0
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
ARRRRRHHHHH!!!
What would you change?
More structured, supported, tracked tasks. More practice during the project work so they are not doing something for the first time on the their main work.

Internal Results

Level 1

AS Number - AS91069
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
8
0
8
0
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Having past project from Tamak College to show a range of achievement levels. The students responded better to these than the exemplars from NZQA.
What would you change?
Add more SOLO supported activities so the students’ writing level rises. This will allow access to merit and excellence levels of achievement.

AS Number - AS91066
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
9
2
5
2
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Practice exercises and use of different media in practice situations worked well as the students could try out skills that were not directly on their projects. The step by step presentations of skills helped the students remember the steps for rendering skills.
What would you change?
I will make more step by step how tos for skills.

AS Number - AS91067
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
7
0
7
0
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Focussing on the design elements in general then focussing them into their designer. This allowed the students to see what elements were used in the architect's work and to directly link them to their own work.
What would you change?
More input into where and who with the design. More thought about how the chair would work. Linking these back to the design elements of the chosen designer will allow students to get up to merit and excellence.

AS Number - AS91068
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
9
4
5
0
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Seeing each other’s work in the class community to get support from  each other.
I saw a lot of helping each other out both with drawing skills and online tasks.
What would you change?
Allow a range of products to choose from.
Think about the future of a product so the students don't’ just copy what is already here.

AS Number - AS91047
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
9
4
5
0
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Linking this work to an already existing project so the students did not feel overwhelmed by another  one.
What would you change?
Giving specific instructions for this standard within the existing project.

Level 2

AS Number - AS91340
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
11
1
6
4
Maori Students

3
1
2
0

For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
The project is structured into small tasks.
What would you change?
Add more SOLO  supported tasks and more group work were I can before they have to produce separate evidence.

AS Number - AS91342
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
11
3
7
1
Maori Students

2
1
1
0

For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Taking the design elements from the design era research into the product design.
Responding to the moderation feedback about a product design project and what it should include.
Continuous production of exemplars by me to show the students what i want them to do.
What would you change?
More SOLO supported activities so analysis is more in depth.

AS Number - AS91356
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
11
4
7
0
0
Maori Students

2
2
0
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
This standard was linked to an existing project.
What would you change?
Breaking down the specific tasks for this standard within the project.

AS Number - AS91341
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
6
1
5
0
0
Maori Students

0
0
0
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
3D modelling a lot within the designing stage.
What would you change?
I am not offering this standard this year due to running out of time and receiving feedback from the students that to suddenly change gear after spending so much time on their design era was very disruptive. I will offer AS91343 instead as this will involve presenting work they have already done.

Level 3

AS Number - AS91630
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
3
0
3
0
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
Exemplars made by me.
Being able to look at previous year's work that included achieved and merit, made by Tamaki College Students.
What would you change?
Make them stick to DEADLINES!!!!

AS Number - AS91610
Internal
No. of Students
Not Achieved
Achieved
Merit
Excellence
All Students
3
0
3
0
0
Maori Students

1
0
1
0
0
For externals include a comparison with national data for decile 1 schools.






Comments
What worked well?
The standard covering work that was happening in an existing project.
What would you change?
Make them stick to DEADLINES!!!!
Making specific reference to tasks for this standard within the project.

NCEA Analysis: Tell the Story Behind Your Statistics
The Curriculum
1.Is this an especially difficult or easy aspect of the subject?
The design work is never the hard part. The analysis is always the part where the students struggle.
2.Is this skill dependent on another?
(For example, how much is research dependent on reading? Do you need to be about to do algebra well to succeed in trigonometry?
Reading and writing skills are key if they are to achieve at higher levels.
The Students
3.Are our students in general simply good/weak at his aspect?
(Are they better at production/performance skills that at conceptual/abstract skills?)
They are always good and if not good then keen with the drawing element of the work. They always seem to be surprised when it is not ALL drawing. I am building the Year 10 course to be more like an NCEA level 1 course because of this so it is less of a shock to them when they get to Y11.
4.Does the subject or standard attract relative experts – or does virtually the whole cohort take this subject? (Students in some sciences, arts and languages tend to be specialising already and self-selecting for ability, while most students are entered for English and Mathematics standards.)
I get a mixture of students who are really good at drawing but their analysis is weak and the weaker ones at the drawing element too. They seem keen though.
The Teaching
5.Are teaching methods and resources especially strong/weak in this area at our school or  nationally?
Resources are physical (pens, pencils, paper, 3d models etc), computer controlled (3D printers and a laser cutter) as well as online using GAFE. We are very well resourced.
6.Have we neglected this area in the past? (Areas that have not been formally assessed nationally in the past may not have been given high priority in classrooms. The old qualifications may not have demanded high-level thinking in some areas. Teachers and students may not have had clear expectations and targets.)
No

The Standards
7.Are the national standards appropriate? (When are they reviewed, do they need to be eased, raised or clarified?)
I always use the most up to date standard from NZQA
8.Have we got the right assessment approach? (Are students getting enough opportunity to show how well they can do? Are all assessments adequately assessing to the standard?)
I have made the tasks cover a variety of skills and they can mostly choose how they want to produce the worrk.

Post a Comment