Examination as a High-Stakes Assessment at Australian Schools

                                                        Contents:




 

• Introducton
• What is a high-stakes assessment?
• Constructive Model and High-Stakes Assessment
• Disadvantages of Examination: How far it is valid?
• An Alternative Assessment: Classroom Assessment
• Conclusion

Introduction

A recent proposal by South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) that at Stage 2 (Year 12) all subjects will have a 30% external assessment component set by SACE Board and an external assessor specified by the Board will assess each student’s performance (Future SACE, 2008). It is also proposed that the form of external assessment for each subject might be ‘Written Examination’ and the design, form content and time of examination will be set externally (Future SACE, 2008). This essay tires to lead an explanation of ‘examination’ as a ‘High-stakes’ assessment with an attempt to clarify the negative effects of examination and its overall validity from the constructive viewpoint of learning whether it can be selected as a high-stakes assessment tool as well as to highlight the steep price that our students, teachers and whole education system paying to include it as a major assessment method. An alternative assessment strategy – ‘Classroom Assessment,’ (Buhagiar, 2007) will be discussed again from the constructive standpoint to preserve the true purpose of assessment and learning and thus to get rid of examinations as a high-stakes assessment.        

What is a High-stakes assessment?

‘High-stakes’, a term used to indicate those situations where interest in assessment goes beyond the immediate sphere of learning measurement and further than those persons who sit the tests (Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). When significant educational paths or choices of an individual are directly affected by test performance, such as whether a student is promoted or retained at grade level, graduated, or admitted or placed into a desired program, the test is said to have high stakes. (Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001, p.139).

In addition to the consequences of high-stakes assessment on instruction, student outcomes are also a focus of concern with respect to unintended consequences. Research suggests that high-stakes assessments are more likely to demoralize the motivation of students already under pressure (Clarke et al., 2003; Roderick & Engel, 2001, cited in Keightley & Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). Similarly, there is a positive relationship between high-stakes assessment and the student drop-out rate: As stakes increase in state assessments, drop-out rates increase (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Clarke, Haney, & Madaus, 2000, cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). However, Fuller and Johnson (2001, cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001) advised caution in attributing high drop-out rates solely to high-stakes accountability systems, because there are no empirical studies demonstrating a causal link between high-stakes assessment and drop-out rates.

Constructive Model and High-Stakes Assessment

The expectation from assessment is that assessment outcomes can now be used more accurately to inform the teaching and learning process (McGaw, 2006). From today’s cognitive point of view, learning is no longer seen as a passive, factual recording of information but a reflective, constructive, and self-regulated process (Gipps 1998, Greeno, et.al. 1996, Anderson et. al. 1996, Snow & Lohman 1993 cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001).  Venville and Dawson (2004) emphasized on authenticity and validity of assessment for its wider use. ,As a result, assessment developers are being asked to construct assessment items that measure performance in quite complex domains, not all of which are easily understood or readily quantifiable (Delandshere & Petrosky 1998, Wiley & Haertel 1996 cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001).

Learning to be constructive, student-centred teaching approach becomes difficult when assessment agency forces high-stakes assessment into the mix (Passman, 1999). Constructive approach entails trust coupled with potential risks. The high-stakes assessment authority defines the learning outcomes so rigidly that it becomes then impossible for teacher or school to afford the risks. Is it rational to blame our students or their caregivers for social failure which is actually out of their control? Constructive approach of learning requires us to see our students capable of learning but as with different learning styles. Then this leaves us to teach and treat each student differently. On the other hand, high-stakes assessment based on standardised scores assumes that everyone must be exactly like me in order to be successful. We are heading to a time where each one must look just like me where ‘me’ consists of those who define the standards. Thus there is a very chilling effect that high-stakes assessment has on the pedagogy and schooling systems. Passman (1999) argued against the entire business associated with high-stakes assessment and totally saddened when he told us a story about ‘Esther’, a teacher who was excited about what her pupils were doing she was capable of accepting some risks with them, but when came across with the pressure of high-stakes examinations, she abandoned her student-centered teaching model and reverted to a traditional pedagogy only to teach students for the test for scores and grades desired by school and state.   

  

Disadvantages of Examination: How far it is valid?

Deci (1992, cited in Tapper, 1997, p.7) examined that when people are motivated by control or pressure, intrinsic motivation and interest that students have for learning tends to be undermined. 

Our growing understanding of assessment as a crucial part of learning helps us turn away from measuring learning towards an assessment which is explicitly designed to promote learning to make it a meaningful and authentic process in which, as opposed to our prior practice that knowledge can be transmitted directly from a knowledgeable head to an non-knowledgeable one, more put trust on the learner’s constructive ability of his/her own experience. At the same time, we came to realize that the ubiquitous existence of conventional type of assessment- examination- in contemporary educational systems (Broadfoot & Black, 2004) affects negatively the teaching-learning environment. Tests and examinations, as a form of high-stakes assessment, definitely have serious adverse effects on a number of counts:

Learning unfriendly: They may divulge what students memorize about what we think they should remember, but do not help us get to truth, meaning, purpose or utility (Ellis, 2001). They can only assess a very narrow range of academic qualities, sudden death, for example, candidates get credit based on only what they perform within the limited and controlled hours of examination; and a noninformative form of assessment, which is, the grade is not conclusive enough to classify what a candidate knows and can do (Desforges, 1989 cited in Buhagiar, 2007).

Curriculum unfriendly: Examinations emphasize recall of factual knowledge with a grave dependence on memory and rote learning (Gipps & Stobart, 1993). They consequently can lead teachers to train students in a narrow range of test-taking skills rather than persuade them to educate a broader variety of high level competencies and understandings (Gipps & Stobart, 1993; Torrance, 1995). Therefore, students build up problem-solving tactics only to pass examinations without gaining the anticipated learning goals (Brookhart, 1999 in Buhagiar, 2007).

Teacher unfriendly: Despite the willingness to engage in student-centric learning, teachers compelled to do what is necessary as to address the test scores - which translate itself a ‘testlike’ teaching program to avoid being publicly embarrassed and humiliated (Smith, 1991).

Student unfriendly: Broadfoot (1996, cited in Buhagiar, 2007 ) argues that examination has a demoralizing effect on most of the students and pushes them out of the system. Students cannot describe themselves completely by examinations. An unwanted side effect of this intrusive process is ‘labeling’ the students based on teacher’s unconscious expectations about what students being able to do. This leads to the realization of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ (Rowntree, 1987, cited in Buhagiar, 2007), which is, teacher shows high expectations to some students while showing low expectations to others. This situation can never achieve a productive level of motivation for all students.

Sandra et al (2007) also argues about the high pressure that examination put on students particularly who have disabilities and they reject to accept the challenge of examinations due to their physical and mental shortcomings. 

An Alternative Assessment

In order to play a constructive role in the learning process and to ensure validity and reliability of information about the learning outcomes with its complete sense which is seen deficit in the examinations and tests paradigm, Buhagiar (2007) suggested an alternative assessment plan using an umbrella term ‘Classroom Assessment’ which is taking of the temperature of the teaching–learning environment inside the classroom – the place from where it originates. Such assessment ‘has a constructive focus where the aim is to help rather than sentence the individual; thus it emphasizes the individual’s achievement relative to him or herself rather than to others, or in relation to defined criteria’ (Gipps & Murphy, 1994, p.261). Instead of unrealistically seeking equality of educational outcomes, this assessment takes equity in assessment as practices and interpretation of results that are fair and just for everyone (Gipps & Murphy, 1994) and thus eventually turns measuring of learning to a support to learning. Thus, it is about more than just a technical activity, rather it is a human activity that influences, affects and involves many people though out whole learning period of time  (Airasian, 2000, p. 22).

Classroom Assessment

Classroom assessment holds trustworthiness that includes: (a) Credibility – which is ensured from a daily ongoing assessment in classroom with the participation of parents, teachers and students in assessment dialogue. (b)Transferability – which demands assessors to identify the context in which a specific learning achievement is demonstrated, thus other assessors or any concerned individuals may judge whether it is transferable to other situations and contexts. (c) Dependability – the assessment method is open to scrutiny and subject to an audit purpose for quality control; and (d) Validity - which relies on the degree to which the applicable constructs are reasonably and sufficiently enclosed in the assessment. (Gipps, 1994)

Classroom assessment takes in to account both the rationales of the teacher and student assessment. Unlike Formative assessment what is used to identify what students have or have not learned and where is their difficulties exist, classroom assessment supports the teaching–learning process’ (Mercurio, 2006; Gipps & Murphy, 1994, p. 260). In addition, classroom assessment has a summative dimension (Harlen et al, 1992) that it is mainly concerned with summarizing information about student achievements at particular times. Since the assessments conducted by teachers are not synonymous with formative assessments, it is a high-stakes assessment that brings long term consequences for students. Through classroom assessment, teachers get repeated feedback on whether and how well students are learning what teachers expect they are teaching. And students are required, through a variety of classroom assessment exercises, to monitor their learning, to reflect on it, and to take remedial action while there is still time left in the semester. (Cross, 1998, p. 6). Similarly, O'Donovan (2005) sees learning as a highly interactive and constructive process where students are not penalized for their opinions and there are no correct format of answers that only determines their capability, rather learning must be highly investigative manner where students will propose based on their prior knowledge and reflection.

Conclusion

Despite the serious adverse effects of tests and examinations as high-stakes assessment over the last decades still examinations is taking place (Cumming & Maxwell, 2004). The negative effects of examinations outweigh the original purpose of assessment of students’ learning achievements and put Principals and teachers are at     greatest risk of succumbing to the effects of high-stakes examinations, because they feel greatest pressure to produce satisfactory grades compelling them to compromise their pedagogies and switching them away from the constructivist approach to learning. An alternative assessment as described as ‘Classroom Assessment’, on the other hand, has its broader implications of assessment from the constructive viewpoint of learning in the wider assessment context (Buhagiar, 2007). In my opinion, it should be teachers and principals who should be responsible, and thus need to be empowered, to determine the degree to which external assessments will weight what happens in classrooms and schools. Schools and teachers must include guardians and community individuals in retaining the validity and integrity of teaching against the stress of high-stakes examinations.

References:

1.       Airasian, P. W., 2000,  Assessment in the classroom: a concise approach, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2nd edition

2.       Broadfoot, P., Black, P., 2004, ‘Redefining assessment? The first ten years of ‘Assessment in Education’’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 7–27.

3.       Buhagiar, M. A. 2007, ‘Classroom Assessment within the Alternative Assessment Paradigm: Revisiting the Territory’, The Curriculum Journal, March 2007, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39- 56. Viewed on 22 August 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=22&hid=106&sid=6b094c61-1b6a-4c9e-8067-5b339eeb37ce%40sessionmgr4>

4.       Cumming, J. J., Maxwell, G. S., 2004, ‘Profiles of Educational Assessment Systems Worldwide: Assessment in Australian Schools: Current Practice and Trends’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, March, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 89-108. Viewed on 22^nd August 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=28&hid=6&sid=23db429b-9bbc-4d2a-8cce-e002903252c6%40sessionmgr11>

5.       Cross, K. P., 1998, ‘Classroom research: implementing the scholarship of teaching, Classroom assessment and research: an update on uses, approaches, and research findings,, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,  pp. 5–12.

6.       Ellis, A. K., 2001, Teaching, learning and assessment together: the reflective classroom, Eye On Education, Larchmont, NY.

7.       Future SACE, 2008, ‘Assessment, Performance Standards and Moderation: Consultation Paper’, May 2008

8.       Gipps, C. & Murphy, P., 1994, A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity, Open University Press, Buckingham

9.       Gipps, C. V., 1994,  Beyond testing: towards a theory of educational assessment , RoutledgeFalmer, London

10.   Gipps, C., Stobart, G., 1993, Assessment: a teachers’ guide to the issues, London, Hodder & Stoughton,  2nd edition,

11.   Keightley, J.V., Keighley-James, D., 2001, ‘Negotiating Multiple Interests in High-Stakes Assessment: Getting Inside Construct Validity’, Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia, November 1, 2001

12.   McGaw, B., 2006, ‘Assessment in an Era of Rapid Change: Innovations and Best Practices’, International Association for Education Assessment, 32^nd Annual Conference 2006

13.   Mercurio, A., 2006, ‘Teacher-Based Assessment at The Upper Secondary Level of Education: An Exploration of The Interaction between ‘Teachers as Assessors’ and ‘Teachers as Moderators’, Paper presented at the 32^nd IAEA Conference, Singapore. Viewed on August 12, 2009 <http://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/download/papers/Teacher-based%20assessment%20at%20the%20upper%20secondary%20level%20of%20education.pdf>

14.   O'Donovan, N., 2005, ‘There Are No Wrong Answers: An Investigation Into The Assessment of Candidates’ Responses To Essay‐Based Examinations’, Oxford Review of Education, September, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 395-422. Viewed on 22^nd August 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=28&hid=105&sid=23db429b-9bbc-4d2a-8cce-e002903252c6%40sessionmgr11>

15.   Passman, R.,1999, ‘Experience with Students-Centered Teaching and Learning in High-Stakes Assessment Environments’, Education, Vol. 122, No. 1, pp. 189-199

16.   Sandra L. Christenson, Dawn M. Decker, Heidi L. Triezenberg, James E. Ysseldyke, and Amy Reschly, 2007, ‘Consequences of High-Stakes Assessment for Students With and Without Disabilities’, Educational Policy, Sep 2007; Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 662 - 690. Viewed on 22 August 2009 <http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?andorexactfulltext=and&fulltext=Consequences+of+High-Stakes+Assessment+for+Students+with+and+Without+Disabilities&src=hw >

17.   Smith, M. L.,1991, ‘Put to the test: the effects of external testing on teachers’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 8–11.

18.   Suarez, T. M, Gottovi, N. C, 1992, ‘The Impact of High-Stakes Assessments on our Schools’, NASSP Bulletin, SAGE Publications, viewed on 21 August 2009 <http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/76/545/82>

19.   Tapper, R. 1997, ‘The Problem of High Stakes Assessment in Public Education’, ERIC, Spring 1997

20.   Torrance, H. 1995, ‘The role of assessment in educational reform, Evaluating authentic assessment: problems and possibilities in new approaches to assessment’, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp.144–156.

21.   Venville, G., Dawson, V., 2004, The Art of Teaching Science, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.

Digital Culture

Digital technologies have ever more permeated daily life and there is a growing recognition that the use of digital technologies is an indispensable part of school learning. Carrington (2006) argues how life for adolescents has changed radically in the last two decades and notes the ease with which adolescents exercise digital tools and the dis-ease with which school use that same tools. Prensky (2001, cited in Zevenbergen & Zevenbergen, 2007, p.34) clarifies this disparity by using the terms ‘Digital Natives’ who are highly tech-savvy and never been without computers and digital technology, and ‘Digital Immigrants’ to refer the group who have not grown up immersed in digital technologies.

The debate on digital cultures evolves when young students being digital natives bring to schools their habits and experiences of the use of digital technologies and are more likely to seek to use these tools as open ended learning situations over a lock-step practice favored by a teacher who belongs to digital immigrants (Zevenbergen & Zevenbergen, 2007). Moreover, young significantly vary in interpreting and interacting with digital world and ‘there is no single model of early adolescent digital media use’ (Carrington, 2006, p. 10). All these issues challenge the current trend of assessment and pedagogy whether these can assess the multi-tasking competency of students and their preference of graphic images over textual images and games to serious work and their well working capacity when networked with peers through devices. Zevenbergen and Zevenbergen (2007) recognize these as strengths rather than deficits and recommend them to be permitted in assessments. Duncan-Andrade (2004) and Mraz, et al (2003) see this popular culture as an avenue that can offer both teachers and students with access to knowledge and build rapport with each other and society at large.

However, curriculum and pedagogy must ensure to which principles or criteria it will incorporate new technologies in formal learning. Is a popular culture always has to be included in pedagogy? We need to be careful that curriculum and pedagogy must not become ‘a hostage to technological change at the level of artifacts’ (Knobel & Lankshear, 2003, p.94). In fact, technology is not a magic bullet that will dramatically change learning outcomes, but only when it is well managed and accommodated with appropriate level then it facilitates learning; otherwise it can be wasted without finding any direction.

In deed, although adolescents believe that their computers, mobile phones, iPods or other digital detritus with which they surround themselves and also receive ‘informal learning’ (Atkinson & Nixon, 2005, p.389), are extremely significant, this is not necessarily always true. I would point that doing multi-tasks simultaneously does not also necessarily means those are well done or well comprehended. I would also argue that curriculum and pedagogy in middle schools may perhaps be better off showing juvenile that digital technology is an implement, not an essential lifestyle.  Before implementing a new technology we must also ensure it does not create a digital divide due to the unequal degrees of access to space and technologies (Lyman, 2004, p.3). Are we so sure at this moment to successfully adjust those tools in classroom environment addressing all concerns involved?                                                   

REFERENCES:

Atkinson, S & Nixon, H 2005, 'Locating the subject: teens online @ninemsn', Discourse: Studies in the ultural politics of education, vol. 26, no.3, pp. 387-409.

Carrington, V 2006, Rethinking the Middle Years: Early Adolescents, Schooling and Digital Culture, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, pp. 1-20                                                      

Duncan-Andrade, J 2004, ‘Your Best Friend or Your Worst Enemy: popular culture, pedagogy and curriculum in urban classrooms’, Review of Education Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, vol.26, no.4, pp.313-337.

Knobel, M & Lankshear, C 2003, 'Planning Pedagogy for i-mode from flogging to blogging via wi-fi' English in Australia Literacy Learning in middle years, vo.139, pp.78-102

Lyman, P., 2004, ‘Digital-Mediated Experiences and Kids’ Informal Learning’, Mac Arthur Foundation, pp.1-17, September 9, 2004. Viewed on August 17, 2009 <http://www.exploratorium.edu/research/digitalkids/Lyman_DigitalKids.pdf >

Mraz, M, Heron, AH & Wood, K 2003, ‘Media literacy, popular culture and the transfer of higher order thinking abilities’, Middle School Journal, Jan, pp.51-56.

Zevenbergen, R & Zevenbergen, K 2007, ‘Millennials come to school’, Middle years schooling: reframing adolescence, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, pp.23-38.  

An approach to an Integrated Curriculum: My Reflection

MY INQUIRIES

l  What are the characteristics of an ‘integrated curriculum’ in terms of its ‘design’ and ‘delivery’ that distinguishes it from traditional approach?

l  What should be counted to an integrated curriculum design? 

l  How significant are the gains made by students using an integrated curriculum over traditional pedagogy?
 

l        Introduction

Our growing understandings about the educational and developmental requirements of early adolescents suggest that curriculum designs for the middle schools need to be relevant, worthwhile and meaningful to all young learners. Teaching students to turn them into critical thinkers and to improve necessary skills to excel in contemporary society has become an inevitable hub of education.  Using an integrated curriculum is an effective way to promote critical thinking in students and engagement in a middle school classroom. A particular purpose of the integrated approach is to change direction from traditional discipline-based Middle Schooling to an acceptable, ‘large world’ focused pedagogy that dissociates from subject-specific learning (Beane, 1991). A curriculum that merges themes from diverse disciplines in a meaningful way to address concerns, questions and areas pertinent to students’ lives is referred to as an integrated curriculum. This essay seeks to answer:  How an integrated curriculum differentiates itself in its design and delivery from traditional approach in the Middle Schooling? Who are the beneficiaries from this new approach? What are the strengths it holds that promote students’ engagement in learning? How significant are the qualitative gains made by students using an integrated curriculum over traditional pedagogy? It is also imperative to understand how schools regard Middle Schooling and how the integration of curriculum is incorporated into the educational setting.

l        The Rationale and Philosophical Grounds for Integrated Curriculum

Integrated curricula have achieved a great deal of recognition among educators since in the real world people’s lives are not separated into detach subjects; hence, it is only rational that subject areas must not be separated in schools. A particular purpose of the integrated approach is to change direction from traditional discipline-based Middle Schooling to an acceptable, ‘large world’ focused pedagogy that dissociates from subject-specific learning (Beane, 1991). Beane describes a typical, middle school curriculum as one that presents an endless array of unconnected facts that might be connected or lead to a whole picture. He compares this type of curriculum to working on a jigsaw puzzle without a picture (Beane, 1991). Advocates cite many advantages curriculum integration holds in helping students from deeper understanding, see the ‘big’ picture, make connections among central concepts to solve problems, and become interested and motivated in school (George, 1996). As participants of the real world, we follow a similar approach to problem solving, using all the available sources that we have. Curriculum integration not only transcends the boundaries imposed by traditional subject groupings, but it also helps promoting democracy in the classroom - ‘allowing students determine to a large extent what they want to study’ (Paterson, 2003, p. 10). Beane (1995) argues curriculum integration begins with ‘problems, issues, concerns posed by life itself’ (p. 616). However, he emphasizes on projects and activities with real application of problem solving that clearly ‘cross-links between all subject areas’ rather than just an unrealistic amalgamation (Beane, 1996). Pendergast and Bahr (2005) argue that integrated curriculum is basically the amalgamation and wholeness of education, rather than historically demarcated and fragmented subject-specific pedagogy.  Indeed, there is no single recipe towards integrated curriculum across the schools, but there is a set of collective philosophies yet to be organized individually and collaboratively by teachers and Middle Schools to facilitate the best learning outcomes (Brennan and Sachs, 1998, p. 5).

l        Integrated versus Traditional:

A Comparison between Two Approaches

An integrated curriculum better serves all students in a learning environment than the traditionally demarcated subjects approach. Paterson (2003) reported from his surveys that students who were severely disengaged in classroom and those who had been suspended even 40 times from the school prior to receiving integrated teaching, under new pedagogy, the students paid more attention and spontaneously participated in classroom discussions and improved their grades and attendance. This did not only help improving students’ performance but also created a positive influence on teachers that they became believers in the power of integration, previously in which they had been skeptical (Paterson, 2003).integrated curriculum is about more than just a technical activity, rather it is a human activity that influences, affects and involves students though out whole learning period.

Now the questions arise why this new approach becomes so successful while traditional pedagogy fall behind? What if we have a very ‘Well-Designed Traditional Curriculum’, still an integrated approach offers any better than traditional one?   The underpinning point lies in the design of an integrated curriculum. The design allows students engaging in real-world problem solving as they gain knowledge and skills. The design supports students to retain more of what they read, hear, say, and do, because they are given more opportunities to be active learners. It is a curriculum that crosses disciplines is a way to increase motivation, knowledge retention, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Musslewhite, 2000 cited in Kaskey-Roush, 2008, p. 23). “Beane argues that an integrated curriculum is more rigorous and relevant than traditional approaches because it challenges young people to think, learn, and tackle issues that are important to them personally” (Paterson, p.11). A mandated curriculum narrows down what you can do with students while an integrated curriculum best meets the students’ needs because it helps them to find their world and to become independent. It benefits both students and teachers. Parents are also pleased as they notice the positive outcomes the integrated design has on their children by stimulating the learners to work harder (Paterson, 2003).

A traditional curriculum, even if it is well-designed, can not present information in a comprehensive manner because it is structurally segregated into different topics, so it cannot make a full sense for real life problems that are not divided into defined topics. Therefore, students miss the connections across various disciplines when they learn subjects separately. Parker (2007, p.1) indicates the issue by questioning, "Is it really possible for students on any given school day to flip a switch in their brains that tells them they are turning off their 'math brains' and engaging their 'social studies brains'?" Their learning is not built on prior knowledge and incapable of providing skills that they can apply in other subject areas or the real world. This method is not only student unfriendly but teachers unfriendly too as they always have to chase up the standardized outcomes. It does not entail ‘trust coupled with potential risks’ which is essential for learning to be constructive. Therefore, despite the willingness to engage in student-centric learning, teachers are forced to do what is necessary to meet the pre determined standard - which translates itself a ‘testlike’ teaching program (Smith, 1991).

l        Integrated Versus Traditional: Through the Lens of Constructivism

Constructivist view of learning requires us to see our students capable of learning but as with different learning styles. Then this leaves teachers to teach and treat each student differently. Conversely, traditionally designed subjects based on standardised tests and scores assume that everyone must be exactly like me in order to be successful where ‘me’ consists of those who define the standards and curriculum. Thus, it has a chilling effect on the pedagogy and schooling system where a teacher cannot afford risk of practicing a student-centered pedagogy because learning standards and outcomes are so rigidly defined. In such environment, students build up problem-solving tactics only to pass tests without gaining the anticipated learning goals (Brookhart, 1999 cited in Buhagiar, 2007). An integrated curriculum brings together subject areas in a meaningful way and deals with diverse learning styles. There are many advantages of applying integration including: learning in-depth information, becoming physically involved with education, increase group cohesiveness, focus on individual needs, and motivation children and teachers (Benson, 2004).

l        What should be counted to an Integrated Curriculum Design?

Beane (1990, cited in Dowden, 2007, p. 58) established a simple but elegant method of generating subject matter for Middle Years. Beane’s method has two focal questions for students: ‘What questions do you have about yourself? What questions do you have about your world?’ (Beane, 1997, p. 86, cited in Dowden, 2007, p. 58). Students teaming up with teachers, examine these questions within the boundaries of an overarching theme, which they categorize. Beane argues that in this way the process of implementing an integrative curriculum design creates and enhances ‘possibilities for personal and social integration’ (Beane, 1997, p. 19, cited in Dowden, 2007, p. 58). Such design also implicates that when students learn, they do their own integrating. Curriculum design should be based on a democratic philosophy where power is shared between the teacher and students. This democratic orientation is evident in the ‘bottom-up’ approach of the integrative model that is based on a process of collaborative teacher-student planning and a process of implementation that allows student voices to be heard and heeded (Dowden, 2007, p. 60 ).

Undoubtedly, such curriculum integration is a potentially power design, however, if is designed only looking at a way to cut across disciplines ignoring educational goals, it cannot promote progress. It is important an integration of content from diverge disciplines is meaningful only when there are valid grounds for doing so and there are obvious juxtapositions and interconnections between them. Otherwise, as Hinde (2005) indicates, ‘integration for integration’s sake is ill advised’. Similarly, Brophy (1997) discourages any type of forced classroom activity to relate it to a theme which is ‘pointless busy work’ and definitely lacking in value.

Another concern often mentioned by educators that planning and coordinating an integrated curriculum is time consuming. However, my point is that once the outcomes of integration are accomplished, the benefits will far out weigh any drawbacks from initial planning. Note that traditionally demarcated subjects also require planning separately for each occasion while we are counting a single plan for integration.

l        PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT INSIGHTS

n        Rhetoric versus Reality: Reflections from Practicum

My school, Y, is for only girls’ educational years 8 – 12 Catholic school located in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. There is a diverse range of students from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds with approximately 650 in total. Their socio-economic condition ranges from low to higher-middle classes. The college consists of two adjacent campuses: Junior Campus for the Middle School (Years 8-10) and senior campus (Years 11-12). The teachers are responsible for teaching subjects in which they are expertise and classes are divided according to subject areas being taught. For example, students under my mentor, Teacher X*, go to different rooms for Science and Math, with other classes coming into my classroom for Physical Education or Contemporary Issues in Science.

Teacher X* is a specialized in science, math and physical education teacher responsible for the Middle Years (8-10) at the school. The rationale of implementing an integrated approach into the pedagogical practice has been discussed with Teacher X*. It is apparent from the discussion that teachers at that school setting use an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary method in their pedagogies rather than a true integrated approach. Also there is an ambiguity in their understanding about the term ‘integration’. They often tempt to refer it as an interdisciplinary, thematic, multidisciplinary etc. As Teacher X* reflected that despite the fact that integrated curriculum is well appreciated in the literature, but still it is lacking in terms of a ‘working definition’. However, Teacher X* also stated that he tries to design lessons where juxtaposition and touch points are apparent among the subject areas and he is optimistic that it provides students gateway to develop skills required for successful transition to their senior school. In regards to outside lives and activities of students, he mentioned that ‘beyond the classroom’ is a program run by the Salvation Army for Year 12 Vocational Studies students, which covers concepts of unemployment, poverty, social justice and active citizenship, but in the Middle Years there is no such program at the moment. Therefore, it is obvious from the observations although the school maintains a broad focus on integrated practices and there are some attempts to interconnect between some subjects, but a real life connection to students are missing. Each course is offered within a specific timetabled period and thus, a true specification of the Middle Schooling integration of subjects remains vague. In regards to Pendergast and Bahr’s (2005, pp. 151-155) six approaches to integration (e.g. synchronized, cross-curricular, thematic, project-based, school specialized and community-focused), Teacher X* outlined that rather than being limited to a strict method, he will apply a culmination of a range of approaches that best match with students’ capacity.

It is evident from the interview that Teacher X* and the school hold the vision of applying an integrated curriculum, but due to the lack of clear direction along with structural and traditionally established method, they cannot afford the risk of switching to a new approach. There is also concern about the capability of teachers who are subjects-based expertise but might not fit well with integrated curriculum.

After analyzing the information gained from the interview along with the literature and material studied at University, it can be seen, a successful implementation of integrated curriculum is quite challenging in the Middle Years of Middle Schooling. Interactions with students during my practicum also indicate that due to the students’ existing biological, psychological, social and cultural changes (Pendergast & Bahr, 2005, pp. 3-11; Hattam & Prosser, 2006, pp. 2-3),) that are taking places in their lives, bringing in sudden changes to the curriculum they are familiar with may rather appear as detrimental to their learning, causing students’ disengagement with my teaching. Therefore, it is imperative that a universal clarification of integration, which is still ‘absent in literature’ (Czerniak et al, 1999, p. 422), and more solid empirical establishments are required to reach the destination.   

Teacher X* has emphasized how there is an increasing approval of moving towards integration when creating curriculum in this setting, nevertheless, there are still lack of willingness to break down the conventionally structured timetable and accept for more of an amalgamation of subject areas. Melding the subjects’ boundaries and timetable to reflect a new collaborative approach may be so difficult.

n        Implications for Practicing Integrated Curriculum

Integrating curriculum with suitable design that links with real life situations will be the main challenge for me during my practicum, however, I will be also taking into account that it may be only achieved through an interdisciplinary effort, a real integration yet to be determined. Designing lesson plans and activities will be the main concentration because they must meaningfully interlink between topics and they must not be too difficult to achieve by students. These also will be based on students’ prior learning and related to their lives- inside and outside the classroom. Activities (both individual and group) and themes will be designed surrounding their home and school life, triggering their high-order critical thinking, incorporating their interests, sports and work habits as well as linking with digital technologies, a popular culture they are exposed to everyday being as ‘Digital Natives’ (Prensky, 2001, cited in Zevenbergen & Zevenbergen, 2007, p. 34).  

As a novice pre service teacher I am fully aware of the fact that I will not be able to incorporate and design the full spectrum of integration during my practicum, nonetheless, I believe I will integrate vital elements such as making connections among students’ home, school and community lives. Moreover, I will try to further delving why such integration which has been seen as positive through out whole Middle Schooling philosophy and literature, but still not active in current pedagogy and curriculum. How can we remove those impediments preventing integration to come to an effect in the classrooms? Certainly Middle Schooling should not be deprived of having its best curriculum design for a long time because of our shortcomings to integrate it. Integration of Middle Schooling curriculum is inevitable to the development of student education. Therefore, I will reflect on the above connotations as challenges that I believe, can be surpassed in the school setting, ensuing in reflection and development of processes that will permit integration to be set up gradually into the curriculum.

In doing so, I will exercise the inquiry questions that Reid (2004, p. 4) highlights so that a teacher can practice to reflect integration of subjects and demonstrate how they can be integrated to create definite cross-curricular and life links.  I will utilize these questions in developing my unit plans. My plans will be well negotiated with students and I will make it explicit to the why I think students need to complete the activities, how these tasks can contribute to their learning, what outcomes I am expecting from these tasks and more importantly, how these can be incorporated to make certain meaningful linkages between cross-curricular and life for the early adolescents. I will evaluate each teaching episode by collecting information from them how they have intermingled with tasks, materials and related links I made with their lives. Based on their feedbacks I will reshape and redesign tasks and monitor with continual assessment of students and my plans. As suggested by Pendergast and Bahr (2005, p. 153), I will be emphasizing on projects based because it assists in guiding the class towards processes that will guide onto the currently neglected integrated curriculum method. This example might possibly spark other teachers that integrated method is an effective form of pedagogy for the Middle Schooling.

“The integrated curriculum is a great gift to experienced teachers. It’s like getting a new pair of lenses that make teaching a lot more exciting and help us look forward into the next century. It is helping students take control of their own learning” (Lake, 1991, p. 1). My School has become successful in interdisciplinary practice at the Middle Years. I believe with down-to-earth effort it can develop a true integrated curriculum in the Middle Schools. The school encounters problems from structuring and designing curriculum at the Middle Grades particularly when students are preparing to shift to senior high school, where subject-specific segregation is more obvious. It will not be again irrational to argue that senior high school can also review and integrate the methodology.

l        Conclusion

Curriculum integration plays a significant role in the Middle Schooling. Active participation from the students in designing the curriculum and in the classroom leads to an ever greater students’ engagement. Such engagement and collaboration create a highly democratic dimension in classrooms which was imagined by Thomson (2002) using a metaphor, ‘virtual schoolbag’ that can be used to share students’ life experiences and prior knowledge to learn topic as a whole apposed to fragmented ones. Undoubtedly, this atmosphere will contribute to explore students by teacher as important ‘funds of knowledge’ that are capable of providing diversified input into the classroom (Thomson, 2002; Moll et al, 1992). Then the Middle Schooling can get redemption from the blame that ‘it disadvantages students by not using their prior experiences’ (Thomson, 2002). Indeed, there are many ways curriculum can meet the needs of all learners, and the reform should not itself be ‘one size fits all’ (Groundwater-Smith, Mitchell & Mockler, 2007, pp. 56-57). But the gains made by students in integrated curriculum are every bit or maybe even more important than quantitative gains such as standardize test scores (Kaskey-Roush, 2008, p. 26).

l        References

1.        Beane, J. A., 1991, ‘The Middle School: The Natural Home of Integrated Curriculum’, Educational Leadership, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 9-13.

2.        Beane, J. A., 1995, ‘Curriculum Integration and the Disciplines of Knowledge’, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 76, No. 8, pp. 616-621.

3.        Beane, J. A., 1996, ‘On the Shoulders of Giants! The Case for Curriculum Integration’, Middle School Journal, No. 28, pp. 6-11.

4.        Benson, T., 2004, ‘Integrated Teaching Units'. Viewed on 22 September 2009,<http://www.pbs.org/teachers/earlychildhood/articles/integratedunits.html#>

5.        Berlin, D., White, A., 1994, The Berlin-White Integrated Science and Mathematics Model, School of Science and Mathematics, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 2-4.

6.        Brennan, M., Sachs, J., 1998, Integrated Curriculum: Classroom Materials for the Middle Years, Australian Curriculum Studies Association/National Schools Network, Deakin West.

7.        Brophy, J., 1997, ‘A Caveat: Curriculum Integration isn’t Always a Good Idea’ Educational Leadership, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 1-66.

8.        Buhagiar, M. A. 2007, ‘Classroom Assessment within the Alternative Assessment Paradigm: Revisiting the Territory’, The Curriculum Journal, March 2007, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39- 56. Viewed on 21 Septembert 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=22&hid=106&sid=6b094c61-1b6a-4c9e-8067-5b339eeb37ce%40sessionmgr4>

9.        Czerniak, C.M., Weber, W.B., Sandmann, A., Ahern, J., 1999, ‘A Literature Review of Science and Mathematics Integration’, School Science and Mathematics, The University of Toledo, December, Vol. 99, No. 8, pp. 421-430. Viewed on 20 September 2009 <http://easstudents.cw.unisa.edu.au/eds/moodle/file.php?file=%2F207%2Fintegration%2Flitreview.pdf>

10.   Dowden, T., 2007, 'Relevant, Challenging, Integrative and Exploratory Curriculum Design: Perspectives from Theory and Practice for Middle Level Schooling in Australia', Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 51-71.

11.   George, P. S., 1996, ‘The Integrated Curriculum: A Reality Check’, Middle School Journal, Vol.28, No.1, pp.12-19.

12.   Groundwater-Smith, S., Mitchell, J., Mockler, N., 2007, Learning in the Middle Years: more than a transition, Thompson, South Melbourne, Chapter 3, pp. 43-57.

13.   Hattam, R., Prosser, B., 2006, ‘Connecting Curriculum with Student Lifeworlds’, paper presented at the International Middle Years of Schooling Conference, Adelaide, August 6, pp. 1-13. Viewed on September 13, 2009 <http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staffpages/brentonprosser/Connecting.pdf

14.   Hinde, E.R., 2005, ‘Revisiting Curriculum Integration: A Fresh Look at an Old Idea’, The Social Studies, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 105-111.

15.   Kaskey-Roush, M., 2008, ‘How Does Using an Integrated Curriculum Promote Critical Thinking and Engagement In Middle School Student Learning?’, Middle Childhood Education, Summer, pp. 1-60. Viewed on 25 September 2009 <http://www.coe.ohiou.edu/resources/documents/roush.pdf>

16.   Lake, K., 1991, ‘Close-Up #16 Integrated Curriculum’, School Improvement Research Series. Viewed on 1 October 2009 <http://www.nwrel.org/archive/sirs/8/c016.html>

17.   Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N., 1992, ‘Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms’, Theory into Practice, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 132-141.

18.   Parker, D., 2007, ‘Integrated Curricula In Gifted Ed.’ Viewed on 22 September 2009 < http://teaching-gifted-students.suite101.com/article.cfm/integrated_curricula_in_gifted_ed#ixzz0StELwYSz>

19.   Paterson, J., 2003, ‘Curriculum Integration in a Standards-Based World’, Middle Ground, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 10-12.

20.   Pendergast, D., Bahr, N., 2005, Teaching Middle Years, Allen & Unwin, NSW: Crows, Chapter 10.

21.   Reid, A., 2004, Towards a Culture of Inquiry in DECS. Occasional Paper 1, DECS. Viewed 0n 25 September 2009 <http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/corporate/files/links/OP_01.pdf>

22.   Smith, M. L., 1991, ‘Put to The Test: The Effects of External Testing on Teachers’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 8–11.

23.   Thomson, P., 2002, Schooling the Rustbelt Kids: making the difference in changing times, Allen & Unwin, NSW: Australia, pp. 1-16.

24.   Zevenbergen, R & Zevenbergen, K 2007, ‘Millennials Come to School’, Middle Years Schooling: Reframing Adolescence, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, pp. 23-38. 

25. Teacher X, Interviewed on 15 September 2009 at the School Y.