Comments on Pilot/Draft Numeracy Tick Sheet assessment documents.
Note: my July 1 emailed comments to Anne-Marie were based on the earlier version of the
standards. These are revised as below:
Measurement Unit Standard Skills Tick Sheet Draft 2.
1. This would be a good tracking sheet for planning and portfolio collection – where the
evidence will be/could be collected for the skills part of the standard, as stated. For
moderation, this could be included to show evidence has been collected over time and
contexts, against Special Notes 2 and 3, and for 1. 1. Thanks for the positive feedback. This
sheet was intended as a cover sheet to students’ evidence portfolio when this is sent for
moderation.
2. Sufficiency column is appropriate and covers the PC and the Special Notes. We have
subsequently changed sufficiency note to state that minimum numbers are a guide only and
a holistic approach would be taken by a ‘numeracy facilitator’ to decide whether a student
had Achieved the Standard overall.
3. Dating column is useful, too.
4. This tick sheet does not collect evidence for 1.2, and states 1.1 and 1.2 are the same. Our
interpretation of 1.1 and 1.2 was obviously different from yours so further clarification of
what evidence would look like for 1.2 is needed. Are students being asked to describe WHY
their method is appropriate in addition to actually solving the problem mathematically?
5. Space for written description of each context would be required. We interpreted ‘context’
as a subject but understand that they can be much more specific than this (more than one
context within one subject). We feel strongly though that evidence for Numeracy Unit
Standards should be collected from multiple curriculum areas to give weight to where skills,
in Measurement especially, are USED (ie Science, Technology etc). We have therefore
stated curriculum areas at the top of a group of columns so that Numeracy Facilitator can
check that students have met requirements in at least three subjects. Contexts within those
subjects will then be described when portfolios are collated and it is expected that in this
way many more than 3 ‘contexts’ (as defined in the standard) will be covered.
6. The contexts could be different (or the same) for every calculation, though – this sheet
implies a set number of contexts? Constraint of having to print the tick sheet. It is expected
that unlimited number of contexts are used.
7. Mass has been replaced by weight? Had replaced with weight when we thought these
ticksheets would be completed for students (lower ability students may be confused by
distinction because for every piece of evidence for calculating or using mass the word
confronting them would be WEIGHT). We have however changed this back and have ‘Mass’
consistent with the standard.
8. The Assessments Used for Evidence table implies all this evidence is collected under
assessment conditions, rather than according to SN2, as NOE. Would “evidence collection
context” be a better term for this second table? Yes, thank you, this has been changed.
9. For 1.1a accurately, and appropriate units are separate skills and the tolerances would need
to be described separately to meet SN 5 and 7. Tolerances described within each piece of
evidence in portfolio. Ticks would only be given if measurements met appropriate tolerance
for problem.
10. For 1.1b correctly would need to be described to clarify for SN 5 and 7. As for 9.? If not,
further clarification on this point is needed.
11. Evidence must also be collected for appropriate measuring tools/devices and location
defined in terms of direction and distances (SN5). Thank you, this had been omitted
deliberately but has been added again to comply.
Number Unit Standard Tick Sheet Draft 2.
1. This would be a good tracking sheet for planning and portfolio collection – where the
evidence will be/could be collected for the skills part of the standard, as stated. For
moderation, this could be included to show evidence has been collected over time and
contexts, against Special Notes 2 and 3. As for Measurement comment.
2. Sufficiency column is appropriate and covers the PCs and the Special Notes . As for
Measurement comment.
3. Dating column is useful, too.
4. This tick sheet does not collect evidence for 1.2. Further clarification is needed here. What
kinds of evidence is expected for this? It is assumed that in each context/problem
‘appropriateness’ will b e described for portfolio and tick will only be given for 1.1 when
method chosen is appropriate AND correct. Is evidence of working sufficient? Is a
description of why method/strategy chosen needed?
5. Space for written description of each context would be required. This would be included
with moderation material and portfolio.
6. The contexts could be different (or the same) for every calculation, though – this sheet
implies a set number of contexts? See comment for Measurement.
7. The lower table implies all this evidence is collected under assessment conditions, in a
subject area, rather than according to SN2, as NOE. Would “evidence collection context” be
a better term for this second table? This has been changed – thank you.
8. Reasonableness would need to be described (in terms of tolerance) to clarify for 1.3. This is
an area of confusion so further clarification is needed as well as examples of the types of
evidence that may satisfy 1.3.