Focus 2009

TECHNOLOGY 2008

CLICK for full report

GOOD NEWS
• Year 4 and year 8 students show a basic ability to read and interpret graphs, tables and maps, with year 8 students showing marked improvement over ear 4 students. There was substantial progress between year 4 and year 8 both in the ability to interpret graphs, tables and maps, and in the ability to construct them. The margin was twice as large for the more sophisticated task of constructing graphs, tables and maps, where the additional teaching received by the year 8 students appeared to help considerably.

• While performance at both year levels was very similar in 2004 and 2008, there has been a small improvement in oral presentations by year 4 students over the twelve years from 1996 to 2008.

• Boys performed almost as well as girls on most speaking tasks.

• While year 4 Pakeha students still perform substantially better than year 4 Mäori and Pasifika students, these differences have decreased between 2000 and 2008.

• Most students scored highly for speech clarity (communicating individual words) where this was assessed, so it was not an important factor in the varied performance of students.

CONCERNS
• Overall performance is not as high as the enthusiasm toward technology, particularly at the year 4 level.

• There are moderate differences in performance between Pakeha and Mäori students, and between Pakeha and Pasifika students. These differences are larger at year 8 than they are at year 4.

• The decile rating of the school, remains a strong factor in terms of relationship to performance.
cog

• Year 4 students seem to have particular difficulty in going beyond the “basics” with regard to technology. They have trouble explaining why things are designed the way they are, considering the social aspects of technology, or designing objects on their own.

LOOKING AHEAD
• At year 4, teachers should provide opportunities for students to consider the wider social/cultural implications (“nature of technology” strand) of technology (such as in “Changes over Time” and “Fishing”).

• Teachers need to model and encourage student use of terms and explanations in technology, such as “magnetism”, “specifications”, and “stakeholders”.

• Children need to examine and critique a range of existing technologies, such as those found in “A Bit of Lemon”. This can include the identification of parts (components), their relationship to the whole and how they function together (e.g., “The Crafty Knife”; “Eel Trap”).

• Almost all of the tasks presented in the report are trend tasks, initially presented to children in 2004. They could be successfully implemented within the revised New Zealand Curriculum.

MUSIC 2008

CLICK for full report

GOOD NEWS
• About 30% of year 4 and year 8 students said that they learned music or belonged to a music group outside of school. Among the year 4 students, substantially higher percentages of some subgroups reported such involvement: 54% of students for whom the predominant language at home was not English, 50% of the Pasifika students, and 43% of students in low decile (1-3) schools. The involvement of Pasifika students in culture-based music activities is one possible explanation. These large subgroup differences were not apparent among year 8 students.

• Out of 14 subjects, music is the fifth most popular for both year 4 and year 8 students. At least 84% of students in both years were positive about doing music at school and also about learning or doing more music as they got older.

• Perhaps reflecting these extra-curricular experiences, year 4 Pasifika students and year 4 students whose home language was not English performed as well overall on music tasks as year 4 Pakeha students. The year 4 Pasifika students excelled on Find the Beat, (p28) far outperforming Pakeha and Mäori students, and also did well on many performance tasks. Pakeha students tended to do better on tasks requiring understanding of music notation or of different musical instruments and styles.

• Other subgroup differences in musical performance were small: between students attending low, medium and high decile schools; between year 4 Pakeha and Mäori students; and between year 8 Pakeha, Mäori and Pasifika students.

• Despite the pressures from other curriculum areas, students’ performance in music has been maintained between 1996 and 2008, with a small improvement for year 4 students in creating, playing and singing music.

• Between 1996 and 2008, school music programmes appear to have given greater attention to listening to music.

CONCERNS
• Performance in singing was generally weak, with little evidence of progress between year 4 and year 8. Students were generally much more successful at maintaining rhythmic patterns than at singing in tune.

• High percentages of students reported few opportunities in school music programmes to play instruments or to make up (compose) music. The latter was a particular weakness in the programmes for year 8 students.

• While most students particularly enjoyed listening to music, few students at either year level showed strong ability to discuss music using musical language.

LOOKING AHEAD
• With about 30% of students involved in music lessons or music groups outside of school (and substantially larger percentages for some categories of students) teachers should seek to capitalise on this involvement and use it as a good starting point for school music activity.

• Schools should seek to involve community musicians and local cultural leaders in school musical programmes. Approaching musicians that some of the students are working with outside of school would be a good starting point.

• Where schools have teachers with real strengths in music, ways to share those strengths across classes should be found.