Introduction:
The English Teachers’ Association (ETA) is a voluntary group of professionals with a membership of over 2,000 individual English teachers in New South Wales and 300 English faculties.
To compile this document, the ETA invited members via the emailed ETA Newsletter and front page of the website to post comments about a review of the HSC on the ETA online Discussion
Board (2286 registered users). Responses have come to the ETA from English teachers across New South Wales.
In addition, two specialist focus groups were held – the first considering The Area of Study and the second, the question of how to avoid prepared responses in the HSC examination.
A working party considered responses from members and the recommendations from the focus groups.
The views expressed by ETA members have been integrated into this report for the New South Wales Board of Studies.
Issues discussed:
1. Area of Study
a. Definition of Concept
An Area of Study is defined in the Stage 6 English syllabus as an ‘exploration of a concept that affects our perceptions of ourselves and our world.’ (p.26)
One of the issues raised in the discussions about the Area of Study related to the fact that there was no defined understanding of the nature of a concept and that this could lead to confusion when
choosing or naming appropriate subjects for an Area of Study.
Members of the ETA working party and the ETA Curriculum Committee developed the following definition for consideration by the Board of Studies
A concept is an abstract idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. In the context of an Area of Study, ‘concept’ typically operates in and through language and
text, as a culturally ubiquitous framing device, which enables ideas and experiences to be organized and at the same time shapes meanings and inferences.
b. Structure of the Area of Study
A significant proportion of responses questioned the necessity of the three focuses through which to approach the Area of Study.
Experience has shown that these have proven unhelpful in the following ways:
- Instead of offering structure or direction towards a larger concept, the overlap between the focus and the concept is the source of confusion. Too many students focus on the focus
area and not enough on the way in which the concept is represented through texts.
- The need to approach the concept through a focus distracts students from a more genuine personal response in their struggle to comply with a complex framework.
- The focuses are not necessarily perceived as equally difficult by teachers who have tended to choose more concrete focuses for their standard students and the more abstract
focuses for their advanced students. This has led to recognisable hierarchies of cohorts at the marking centre.
Summary:
As the common content of the Stage Six English Standard and Advanced courses , the Area of Study has a critical role in assessing the work of HSC students. Areas of confusion have
arisen in what constitutes a concept and the ways the focuses relate to the larger Area of Study.
Conclusion:
The ETA recommends that the Board of Studies consider:
- including a definition of ‘concept’ based on the above suggestion in the glossary in the Stage 6 English syllabus.
- removing the three focuses from the Area of Study leaving students to work directly with the way the concept is represented and how this affects perceptions of ourselves and our world.
2. Module B Advanced.
The discussion on this module was considerable across the ETA member responses. The discussion touched on questions of:
- What constitutes a ‘reading’ and
- Whether the module was conducive to students’ engagement with a text and the development of a ‘personal response’.
Participants drew on their experience with students in the classroom, callers on Advice Line, HSC Advanced English examinations and Notes from the Marking Centre.
It was recognised that the issues surrounding Module B were largely ones of “public perception”. Nonetheless, they needed to be addressed. Respondents cautioned against an
overreaction in “bowing to public pressure”. They advised that it was important to ensure the integrity of learning through the syllabus for the broad range of students and learning
contexts in New South Wales.
The interpretation of the syllabuses requirement to evaluate a text’s ‘reception in a range of contexts’ and to ‘test these against their own understanding and interpretations’ has
been severely narrowed by some teachers to the study of such positions as Feminist/ Marxist/ psychoanalytic readings. It has been noted that in some schools, these readings take
precedence over a student’s personal engagement with the text. It has been suggested that this practice grew out of the support provided for the syllabus in 2000 and 2001 which, for obvious
practical reasons, tended to focus on the elements of the new in the syllabus. These support documents still exist in schools. This focus has had the unfortunate effect of distorting the
perception of the module for those teachers who do not regularly refer to the syllabus document itself.
One interesting observation is that the comments which identified a problem with multiple readings specified the play King Lear. While some teachers were clearly successful in
approaching this play through activities which interested their students and fulfilled syllabus requirements, others believed the play to be ‘too big’ for study within the context
of this module. Time pressures enforced shortcuts such as less time spent on the play and the presentation of a list of ‘readings’ from various theoretical positions.
Of teachers who found Module B “challenging and rewarding for students”, some then freely admitted that they didn’t teach King Lear!
Another issue related to Module B is the number of prescribed Speeches in the BOS support document. There has been an increase in the number of students presenting this elective for
examination, indicating increasing teacher interest in and enthusiasm for this elective. However, members have indicated that they find the number of speeches their students are expected to
study difficult to manage in the time they effectively have to teach the elective. Currently, twelve speeches are set for study.
Given the significance of the rhetorical tradition to the study of English, ETA strongly supports the Speeches elective in Module B. It is recommended that the BOS reduce the number of
speeches set for study.
Summary:
While teachers acknowledge that there is a problem of perception with Module B Advanced, the issue is not with the syllabus which provides a framework for stimulation and engagement
with texts. The difficulties arise with the complexity of a play like King Lear which is daunting under any circumstances for young people. These difficulties are exacerbated by a failure
to read the syllabus document carefully and to rely on professional judgement against popular but narrow interpretations in a climate of pressured assessment schedules.
Conclusion:
The syllabus description of Advanced English Module B is appropriate. The ETA sees no need to amend the description of Module B but recommends that:
- teaching support be provided for the module in which the syllabus requirements are clearly reiterated and specifically explained
- text selection of the Shakespeare elective for this module take into consideration the magnitude of the work.
3. How to avoid prepared responses
This issue was raised to ascertain if there had been any change of view since the ETA survey in 2004 which revealed a general concern about the predictability of generic HSC examination questions in all courses.
Comments showed that this view was still prevalent and respondents expressed a strong desire for fewer generic questions claiming that these fueled a burgeoning tutoring industry,
encouraging those who did not have a detailed understanding of HSC courses to support their students with prepared answers. Members also commented that the examinations of previous HSC
courses did not suffer from this problem to the same extent.
There were several possible features of the examination-setting process that were identified as promoting prepared responses including:
- whether the examination brief for writing questions was restricting the creativity of the exam committee
- the seeming need to represent the entire module in a single broad question providing little opportunity for the individuality of texts to be explored and finally
- the close links between the setting of exam papers and the marking operation.
Each of these is discussed separately.
a. Guidelines
The examination outcomes are reflected in the assessment rubric at the beginning of each question on the exam paper and in the marking guidelines which are both provided with the examiners’
comments in the Notes From The Marking Centre.
Concerns were expressed that the assessment rubrics do not change from year to year. Teachers stated that there is no reason for these to remain the same and that this regularity contributes
significantly to the standardisation of questions and therefore of responses.
Assessment rubrics also have a flow on effect to the marking guidelines and similarly to the outcomes assessed by each question. These have shown minimal change from year-to-year.
This has led to marking guidelines which can be so broad that it is difficult to see the questions in them, further allowing for the success of prepared answers.
b. Breadth of the Questions
While the English Teachers’ Association recognises the importance of reliability of marking across different questions in an individual module, particularly in modules that are marked in
geographically divided locations, teachers believe that the drive for consistency through the use of generic questions is limiting the validity and reliability of the examination as an
assessment tool.
The module description is the broadest outline of the learning in the HSC course. Within the module there are electives and within electives, texts or combinations of texts. With this range of
possibilities for specific questions, there is scope in the examination of the syllabus for variety and ingenuity. Aside from the traditional essay, examination questions could reflect a
variety of contexts of authentic writing appropriate to a particular text or elective. Yet despite these opportunities, questions remain generic and a single question or question stem is
used to examine texts and electives that may address elements of the English curriculum in very different ways. By their very nature, generic questions must remain broad to avoid the
possibility of constructing questions that work for some texts but are a nonsense for others. This restricts the range of questions that may be asked and examination papers become
predictable and dull. This has led to comments in the media by the usual critics for the paper’s “mundane, superficial stuff." However, when supporters of the syllabus and the work of the
Board of Studies in general describe the exam paper as bland and like "cold gravy", the situation bears scrutiny and revision.
The situation regarding predictable examination papers has been exacerbated in recent years. We need to bear in mind that the original Examination Specifications were developed at a time
when the turnaround for HSC text lists was two years. The current HSC Prescriptions List will have operated for six years before it will change and the next list is set to be in force for
three years. This extension makes freshness more difficult for examination committees.
c. Close links between the setting and marking of examination papers
There was a strong view that the examination should be influenced only by the examining of the syllabus requirements and its learning outcomes. While the pragmatics of the marking
operation need to be considered, concerns were expressed by ETA members that these might have an undue influence on the content of the papers. Although it may be easier to manage marking
operations when exam-setting committees, rubrics, questions, guidelines and marking centres are closely articulated, if these become too close then examinations risk losing sight of the central
concern of the exam committee which is to examine the syllabus. It can also lead to a formulaic style which adds to the predictability of the questions.
Members have expressed concerns that there is a tension between the roles of different participants in the examination process. Some unease has been expressed that there may be a conflict of
interest for the Chief Examiner. This conflict lies in the responsibilities of the role for
- setting of the examination paper, developing the marking guidelines and developing the marking schema explicating these guidelines, (which is not subsequently made available to the
broader English teaching community)
- representing the examination committee at the marking centre
- briefing the Coordinating Supervisors of Marking
As the sole conduit of communication between those who set the paper and those who mark it, the range of functions of the Chief Examiner puts the examination process at risk. One
individual is placed in position to represent the exam’s intent, bring a particular view to the interpretation of marking guidelines and so potentially influence the marking of an
examination question.
To remove this conflict of interest, examination committees and indeed the public need to be confident of quality control at marking centres to ensure the validity of the marking.
Quality control would involve taking into account the features of particular marking centres and standardised marking and interpretation of syllabus and modules to ensure that markers
understand the demands of the question. Currently, quality control rests with the Chief Examiner who, aside from being closely involved in setting the paper, does not have the time
required at each marking centre to judge the complex interplay of variables.
Summary:
The predictability and blandness of HSC English papers has been noted in the profession and outside it. This quality arises out of the frequency of generic questions. While the ETA
recognises that reliability across different texts is critical to a valid examination, teachers believe that there is scope for achieving this without compromising the challenge,
appeal and variability of examination papers.
Conclusion:
The ETA recommends that the Board consider
- examination questions more particular to the elective or single text, where appropriate
- reducing the number of generic questions to allow for the scope and variety of student learning to be examined
- varying the assessment rubrics on examination papers from year to year and allowing natural flow on from this to marking guidelines and to mapped outcomes
- ensuring that marking guidelines contain specific reference to the set question
- further separation of the work of examination committees from the work of the marking centre to free up any constraints they may experience regarding perceptions about the ways that
the module/elective/type of question has been interpreted in previous markings;
- changing title of Chief Examiner to that of Chair of the Examination Committees and curtailing the role so that it has no direct influence in how questions are marked
- appointing a team of people for the purpose of Quality Assurance, not involved in the setting of the papers, prepared to listen to Supervisors of Marking and look at
interpretation of the syllabus, assess the implementation of the marking guidelines. This team should work as a team across all the marking centres to resolve contentious
issues in the marking centre at the time, and not after the marking operation.
4. Are there too many texts?
This question was interpreted in two ways. Some respondents reiterated their concern (one that has been repeated with each consultation including in the original Writing Brief of the
Stage 6 English Syllabus) that there are too many texts for NESB and low ability students. This point will be taken up further in the next section.
The main issue regarding the number of texts in the courses centred on texts of students’ own choosing. It was noted that many students were content to pay only lip-service to
this requirement, using slight texts and making superficial comments about them. There were also reports that schools provided students with packages of suitable texts. This may be
because some teachers like to ensure that certain texts are included by their students or perhaps they believe that the course is too hard for their students and so provide them with
extra support.
There was a recognition that the task of selecting their own material was one of the most difficult things for students to do and concerns were expressed about the extent to which
teachers should assist students with the task, given that there were no guidelines for this process.
The point was also made that texts of students' own choosing were important in developing their capacity for independent learning, a key outcome of the syllabus. This aspect of the
course invited students to consider the set texts in the context of their own reading to make their responses more personally significant and to increase their engagement with the course.
Conclusion:
The ETA recommends that the Board
- retain texts of students’ own choosing as this element of the syllabus is integral to the assessment of outcome 13 in the HSC examination and in school-based assessment
- provide guidelines for teachers on what constitutes professional support of students in the use of ‘texts of their own choosing’ across all English courses.
5. Is the HSC English Standard Course too difficult?
The ETA has made representations to the BOS in the past indicating a widespread belief amongst members that the HSC English Standard course is too difficult for many of the weaker
students in the State and some of those of non-English-speaking background. Members claim that for these students the current course is too rigorous in its content and scope,
the number of texts to be covered and the amount of work to be completed. Meanwhile, students and teachers are opting for the Life Skills course when they could and should be doing
an English course that is more appropriate to developing their knowledge, skills and understanding in English if there were one suitable for them. Years of experience in teaching these
students have only strengthened members’ views on this position.
Summary:
The ETA recognises that it is important for students to perform to the best of their abilities. The curriculum must be structured to provide this equally for all students.
Students with difficulties cannot be allowed to continue with a course that is too demanding for them simply because more able students have in the past misused the system. Some of these
students are sufficiently disillusioned to attempt the Life Skills course because there is no English course to address their needs.
Conclusion:
The ETA recommends that the Board
- review the statistics relating to the HSC Common Content – particularly the bands of achievement in question three and
- consider the development of a new course for those experiencing difficulties with the Stage 6 English Standard course.
The ETA suggests that any appeal of the course for those students for whom it was not intended be removed either by
- excluding the course’s contribution to a Universities Admission Index
- structuring the course to provide some common content with a module in the Standard English course only and allowing this to be linked to the UAI. The remaining modules
would then be scaled down.