Monday, November 13, 2017

NCEA Internal Results Analysis for DVC 2017

I have looked at my NCEA Level 1, 2 and 3 internal results and how they compare to last year.
My inquiry for this year is outlined here and this has been the focus of most of my analysis. This is the reason I have compared this year to last, to see if my inquiry has had any effect. Overall, I can see the start of improvement in achievement and there is a lot to build on for next year.

Overall :-
What went well?
The structure of using SOLO taxonomy really helped the students build the complexity into their work slowly and in stages so they could understand what they were doing and why.
Working together on certain elements of the work gave them a lot more confidence to move into their own individual work.
What needs work?
In class and out out of class support, especially for when they are either not there or are in a very busy, mixed level class situation. This could be in the form of more online tutorials the can refer to in their own time.
The not achieved results this year are not through lack of quality in the work produced, but in not finishing work. We need to stick to the time plan put together at the start of the year to enable time to complete everything on time. The knock on effect of spending more time on earlier elements to get them finished was not good for the last projects in the year.

Moving on?
As my inquiry has spiralled into literacy and vocabulary, this is the area of focus for next year, while still using SOLO to structure it. I hope this will continue the shift into merit and excellence.

Level 1 Design and Visual Communication

What went well?
All of the students completed the project and achieved the credits that were on offer (4 credits ).
There was a shift into getting merit and excellence and this trend needs to continue next year. The use of a lot more structure in the research for this project gave the students a better understanding of the design elements used in their architects work.
What needs work?
More emphasis on analysis of what they are doing and literacy will enable more shift into higher levels of achievement. More structure that uses SOLO taxonomy to slowly build more understanding.

What went well?
All students got the 3 credits that were available for this project. There is a move into merit and excellence. The structure that was put into the research of the poster project has meant that the students have a good understanding of the design elements in the work of their designer that they have to use in this project.
What needs work?
A number of students took far too long on this project and this had a knock on effect to completing the next one.

What went well?
Unlike last year, all the students produced work for this standard. The quality of the work produced was improved. The rendering skills sessions that we did as a class prepared them well for the needs of this standard.
What needs work?
Only 3 students managed to produce work for this standard in 2 different projects as too much time was spent on the first one.

What went well?
There was work produced that is in the merit and excellence area of achievement. Doing concept ideas and development work in 3D modelling worked well as the students could see what they were trying to achieve and were then able to draw from the 3D models.
What needs work?
Far too many students started this project but did not complete it due to running out of time. Attendance is part of this during the second half of the year and spending far too long completing the previous project. We need to focus on the time plan set at the start of the year and try to stick to it as this will enable us to complete the whole plan.

Level 2 Design and Visual Communication

What went well?
The students did some of this work in small teams and this gave them a lot more confidence. Using SOLO taxonomy to structure their research enabled them to build the complexity slowly so they understood what they were doing.
What needs work?
Making sure all students complete the work so there are no not achieved results.

I have put these two standards together as they are the same project, the Lighting Project.
What went well?
The students understanding of their design era from the previous standard was very clear to see and they used what they knew well.
They worked through the design process well and linked everything clearly through to the final design.
What needs work?
The not achieved results here are about the quality of work, but simply through not finishing. This is mainly through lack of attendance in the latter part of the year. Again, as in Level 1, we need to stick to the time plan at the start of the year in order to complete everything.

There is no comparison on this standard as it is the first time we have done it in the Design and Visual communication course. Overall, I am pleased with the level of achievement and the ability to gain merit level form some students. They worked in small teams for some of it and this strategy worked really well. The not achieved is purely from lack of attendance.

Level 3 Design and Visual Communication

For the two internal standards that we do, the results last year were 100% at achieved level for both standards.
These graphs are for this year.

There were a lot more students doing Level 3 DVC this year compared to last year. It was very pleasing to have a merit for one of the Level 3 internals this year.
What helped a lot this year was having exemplars from Tamaki College to show the students where they could see how the work for the external standard flowed into the product design for the internal standard. These exemplars were at  both achieved and merit.
What needs work is offering the students who do not attend as often as others the ability to complete their work (after school, holiday sessions, online tutorials etc... )

No comments:

Post a Comment