澳洲教育学作业代写 NAPLAN

2020-08-20 04:59

澳大利亚联邦政府于2008年推出了基本读写和算术能力的标准化NAPLAN考试。NAPLAN的目的是“创建数据,提高学生的成绩,提高结果的公平性,全面提高澳大利亚的经济生产力能力”(Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013, p.300)。所有学校的NAPLAN结果都公开发布在My School网站上,在那里可以比较学校的表现。NAPLAN测试的意见存在分歧。NAPLAN的支持者认为,该结果有助于提高透明度和问责制,并帮助父母在孩子的教育问题上做出重要决定。那些不支持NAPLAN的人认为其后果是巨大的,因为它们是负面的(Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013)。教师认为NAPLAN对教学和课程有负面影响。教师们认为他们更倾向于应试教学,并将更多的时间花在被评估的课程领域,这导致了学生参与度的降低和课程范围的缩小(Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013)。澳大利亚的研究表明,当教师调整教学策略以满足考试要求时,会对学习困难的学生产生负面影响(Comber, 2012,引用Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013)。高风险考试不但没有提高教育成果,反而扩大了成绩最好和最差学生之间的差距。成绩最差的澳大利亚学生往往来自贫困家庭,包括土著学生。由于生活在偏远的地理位置,NAPLAN测试中使用的文化假设知识和语言进一步不利于学生掌握考试所需的知识(Wigglesworth et al, 2011,引用Thompson and Harbaugh, 2013)。Meadmore(2004)声称“集中化的测试在社会和文化上具有歧视性”(第33页)。国际研究表明,“高风险测试”中的问责制“对学生的成绩几乎没有任何积极影响”。
澳洲教育学作业代写 NAPLAN
The Australian standardised NAPLAN test in basic literacy and numeracy skills was introduced by the Commonwealth Government in 2008. NAPLAN was devised to “create data that will improve the achievement of students, will improve the equity of outcomes and overall improve Australia’s capacity for economic productivity” (Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013, p.300). All schools’ NAPLAN results are openly published on the My School website where comparisons between the performances of schools can be made. NAPLAN testing has divided opinion. Supporters of NAPLAN argue the results assist transparency and accountability and help parents make important decisions about their children’s education. Those who do not support NAPLAN argue the consequences are as vast as they are negative (Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013). Teachers claim NAPLAN has negative consequences on pedagogy and curriculum. Teachers perceive they are more likely to teach to the test and spend more time on the curriculum areas being assessed, which results in less student engagement and a narrowing of the curriculum (Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013). Australian research indicates when teachers adjust their teaching strategies to address the testing requirements there is a negative impact on struggling students (Comber, 2012, cited in Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013). Instead of improving educational outcomes, high stakes testing widens the gap between the lowest and highest achieving students. Lowest achieving Australian students tend to be from disadvantaged backgrounds and include Indigenous students. The culturally assumed knowledge and language used in NAPLAN testing further disadvantages such students who may not have acquired the knowledge required in the testing, due to their living in a remote geographical location (Wigglesworth et al, 2011, cited in Thompson and Harbaugh, 2013). Meadmore (2004) claims “centralised tests are socially and culturally discriminatory” (p.33). International research indicates that accountability through high stakes testing has had “little, if any positive effect on student achievement”。
本段内容来自网络 并不是我们的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃,查重100%,造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文请记得联系我们。