The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is actually being tested by NAPLAN? > Comments

What is actually being tested by NAPLAN? : Comments

By Elizabeth Grant and Fiona Mueller, published 22/3/2010

NAPLAN tests: how are teachers expected to teach and students to learn from test papers whose nature and purpose are not clear?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of item 49 of Yr7 2008. It's true we usually only use a comma to a separate a subordinate clause from the main clause when the subordinate clause comes first. However, it has long been acceptable to set off additional information in a sentence with either commas or brackets. Some grammarians call this a peripheral dependant or adjunct. I agree that the sentence is a little clumsy but I think the 'before it burst into flames' is parenthetical and may be omitted i.e. 'The man got out of the car and ran away'. Hence, the commas can be justified.

The clumsy sentence brings me to what I think is the point of your argument which is that the people who write the conventions of language section don't seem to have a good grasp on the conventions of language themselves. I think this reflects the long battles about grammar which have taken place in our education establishment over the past decades. We have gone from the traditional grammar of the 70s, to the 'teach no grammar' of the 80s, to the systemic functional grammar of the 90s (which nobody understood), to the 'after 20 years of tumult nobody really understands any grammar anymore' this past decade, and finally, to the 'return to tradtional grammar' of the National Curriculum 2010.

I wouldn't expect things to get better any time soon.
Posted by dane, Monday, 22 March 2010 5:17:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the authors don’t like the NAPLAN tests, then they can always design their own and offer them as an alternative.

This could be productive.

The main characteristics of a teacher would include:
The ability to whinge.
The ability to continuously ask for more and more and more “government spending” (i.e taxpayer funding)
The ability to import as much as possible with government spending.

So its about time that teachers where more productive.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 25 March 2010 6:02:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Public school teachers do a fantastic job in an under resourced and under funded system. Imagine the possibilities if schools were (note spelling) well resourced. It is such a shame that 70% of federal government funding goes to 30% of the population i.e. private schools. Public school teachers are producing brilliant results with very little. Private schools are well resourced and funded yet their students are statistically more likely to drop out of uni when the going gets tough. Public school students are used to dealing with adversity and making the most of what they have.
Vanna says teachers continuously ask for more and more and more “government spending” (i.e taxpayer funding). What does she suggest we do, have teachers resource schools? Every teacher I know already contributes a significant amount of their own money toward classroom resources and items for students in their class. How many other professions are expected to do this?
Naplan testing is not indicative of a school’s success/failure. It is simply a report of a test taken on a given day by a very small sample of the school population
Posted by Qld Steve, Monday, 29 March 2010 2:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for this article.
It seems that whoever wrote the questions does not have an educational background that included the study of English language at a level higher than Primary schooling.
Teachers must know exactly what it is the question is testing or they cannot possibly set a curriculum.
I still think teaching is far more important than testing so let's have curriculum first and testing second with the full knowledge that only some of the students will score at the very top of the scale. It has ever been so!
Posted by Hilily, Monday, 29 March 2010 4:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy