Hayley Firth/18608638

101586 1H/2020
Assignment 1: Interpreting and Critiquing Student Data
Analysis of the Student’s Writing Skills

This report focuses on the ‘National Assessment Program- Literacy and Numeracy’
(NAPLAN) achievements of Hina Nasim in Narrative Writing (L.Tan, personal
communication, March 2, 2020). Two descriptors from the ‘Narrative Writing Marking
Guide’ (National Assessment Program [NAP], 2010) are critiqued for analysing the
limitations of NAPLAN marking criteria in assessing Hina’s writing skills as an ‘English As a
Second Language/Dialect’ (EAL/D) learner. Subsequently, recommendations for formatively
assessing a key area of concern for Hina will be discussed and implemented. Previous
research and academic literature will then be utilised to justify why formative assessment
strategies are more beneficial than utilising NAPLAN diagnostic data in catering for Hina’s
future educational needs.

Nevertheless, Hina Nasim is an EAL/D student who undertook the NAPLAN in 2019 during
Year 5. Hina achieved slightly above mid-band five in her 2019 NAPLAN writing
assessment. Her writing achievement was below the national average (high-band 5,
approaching band 6) and below the school average (slightly below mid-band 6). However,
her writing achievement sat within the range of achievement for the middle 60% of Year 5
students who completed the same writing test in Australia (from low band 5 to high band 6).
Hina’s writing achievement is also above the national minimum standard of band 4.
Furthermore, her attained scores for Narrative Writing (W1-W10) are listed below.

Figure 1: Hina’s Attained Narrative Writing Scores

Audience Text Ideas Character & Vocab. Cohesion Para. Sentence Punctuation Spelling
Structure (0-5) setting (0-5) (0-4) (0-2) Structure (0-5) (0-6)
(0-6) (0-4) (0-4) (0-6)

3 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 2

Critique of NAPLAN Narrative Writing Marking Criteria

The NAPLAN produces a summative assessment for Australian students’ literacy and
numeracy skills. Teachers evaluate this diagnostic data to develop an understanding of their
students’ abilities and thus, inform their educative practices (Angelo, 2013). However,
descriptors within the ‘Narrative Writing Marking Guide’ (NAP, 2010) are ambiguous and
complicate the utilisation of data. Therefore, I will be critiquing the descriptors for
‘Vocabulary’ (W5) and ‘Spelling’ (W10) (NAP, 2010) in relation to Hina Nasim’s 2019
NAPLAN writing achievements (L.Tan, personal communication, March 2, 2020).
Hayley Firth/18608638

The descriptors for ‘Vocabulary’ do not provide student-specific data for educational
purposes. Initially, Hina attained a score of two out of five for ‘Vocabulary’ (L.Tan, personal
communication, March 2, 2020). According to the NAPLAN Narrative Writing Marking
Guide (NAP, 2010), this suggests she used “mostly simple verbs, adverbs, adjectives or
nouns” in addition to “two or three precise words” (p.10). Although this guide provides
literate examples of the attained score (NAP, 2010), it excludes the specific vocabulary Hina
employed in her NAPLAN writing assessment. Consequently, this complicates the utilisation
of her data for my educative practices and Hina’s learning. For instance, Hina may have
successfully practised simple verbs and nouns within her assessment but lacked application of
adjectives (NAP, 2010). Without observing this type of information, I cannot identify which
specific area of improvement Hina requires. Furthermore, Hina’s parents and myself need to
be aware that this data represents Hina’s ‘Standard Australian English’ (SAE) skills and
ignores her EAL/D background (Angelo, 2013; Creagh, 2014). Angelo (2013) emphasises
this, as EAL/D student needs often become “overlooked in favour of inappropriate literacy-
based interventions” (p.60) in response to NAPLAN results. Consequently, Hina’s vocabulary
“range and precision of language choices” (NAP, 2010, p.10) may be influenced by more
complex linguistics, such as her phonological awareness of SAE (Oakley & Fellowes, 2016).
If the descriptors provided the key words Hina portrayed and lacked confidence in, her SAE
skills would become more prominent and the appropriate programs could be implemented
(Angelo, 2013). Overall, the ambiguity of the ‘Vocabulary’ marking criteria challenges my
judgement for planning pedagogical practices that would cater for Hina’s needs.

Subsequently, the descriptors for ‘Spelling’ are ambiguous and misrepresent student ability.
Hina attained a score of two out of five for ‘Spelling’ (L.Tan, personal communication, March
2, 2020), suggesting her narrative writing consisted of “some common words” with errors and
“some simple words (NAP, 2010, p.8). The Narrative Writing Marking Guide (NAP, 2010)
provides limited information about these word groups which restricts the educational value of
the diagnostic data. For instance, ‘simple words’ could involve consonant digraphs, consonant
blends and/or double final consonants (NAP, 2010) but the marking criteria does not specify
which Hina attempted. Angelo (2013) abides this argument, as specifying how EAL/D
learners struggle with SAE provides educational insight for implementing literacy programs
suited to student needs. Accordingly, the marking criteria states Hina made “some errors”
(NAP, 2010, p.15) when spelling common words but does not exhibit the specific errors she
made. This limits the utilisation of data as I cannot recognise the underlying processes
impacting Hina’s spelling ability and thus, further examine her results for educational
purposes (Chua, Liow & Yeong, 2016). Furthermore, the marking criteria does not assess
spelling skills in its entirety (Perelman, 2018). By focusing on students’ visual knowledge of
spelling, students are being assessed on their ability to identify spelling errors through letters
and sounds (Winch et al., 2014) which ignores their morphemic knowledge. Spelling is a skill
that is taught to be utilised “as a tool to understand and create meaning in texts” (Australian
Curriculum, Assessing and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2010, p.52), not just to identify
errors that are not provided for teachers either (Perelman, 2018). This disadvantages Hina, as
EAL/D students who struggle with this knowledge cannot adequately recognise spelling
errors and therefore, “struggle… to express themselves in writing” (Angelo, 20130, p.59).
Hayley Firth/18608638

Hence, this misrepresents Hina’s ‘Spelling’ ability and further ignores her educative needs as
an EAL/D learner.

Professional Recommendations for Formatively Assessing Hina

Therefore, ‘Spelling’ is the area of concern for Hina as she scored two out of five (L.Tan,
personal communication, March 2, 2020). Practising spelling skills are vital for the
development of creating and understanding meaning in texts (ACARA, 2010). By observing
and analysing spelling errors of ‘common words’ made by Hina, I can implement appropriate
strategies to improve her literacy skills in narrative writing (Tompkins et al., 2014). However,
the criterion does not provide evidence of Hina’s ‘spelling’ attempts which limits the use of
her NAPLAN data for educational purposes. Therefore, I will be implementing formative
assessment strategies to further identify these errors and assist Hina in developing
“appropriate strategies to accurately spell familiar and unfamiliar words when composing
(narrative) texts” (EN3-4A; NSW Education Authority Standards [NESA], 2012, p.109).

Formative assessment entails teaching practices with ongoing assessment for progressive and
catered education (Dixson & Worrell, 2016). This can be achieved for Hina through
implementing the ‘Know-Want-Learn’ (KWL) strategy within a 60 minute lesson whereby
students investigate spelling errors within narrative texts (Zouhor, Bogdanovic & Segedinac,
2016). Initially, I would formatively assess Hina’s existing knowledge in order “to check
student understanding and plan subsequent instruction” (Karbach, 2014). For instance,
introducing lessons by engaging Hina in whole-class discussions and brainstorming ideas of
‘what they know’ about common word properties into a collaborative mind map.
Subsequently, this will allow Hina to self-assess her existing knowledge and expands
opportunities for ‘what she wants to know’ (Zouhor, Bogdanovic & Segedinac, 2016) from
the lesson. To ensure this, students will be encouraged to record their responses in a table
(Figure 2) and ‘think-pair-share’ their ideas before engaging in the main task. This also
provides opportunities for Hina to conference her educational needs and negotiate her
learning progression with her peers and myself (Winch et al., 2014). Evidently, Hina will
work with a partner to inquire and discuss “misspelt words” within imaginative texts and “use
a variety of resource for correction” (NESA, 2012, p.109). Furthermore, evidence of learning
is provided as Hina shares ‘what she learned’ in her KWL chart within the conclusion of a
lesson. I formed a success criteria (Figure 3) from the ‘National Literacy Learning
Progression’ (ACARA, 2010) links with the relevant English Syllabus outcome EN3-4A
(NESA, 2012) to analyse Hina’s KWL. This will assist in “making evidence-based decisions
about student development and future learning” (NESA, 2012, p.110) regarding Hina’s
spelling ability in narrative writing. Finally, I will implement the ‘twitter post’ strategy
(Figure 4) at the end of a lesson to provide opportunities for further questions and utilise this
information for the next lesson’s introductory discussion. Overall, these formative assessment
strategies emphasise the importance of ongoing assessment during teaching to ensure
progressive and catered learning for Hina’s EAL/D needs.

Figure 2: KWL Chart

Hayley Firth/18608638

https://www.papertraildesign.com/free-kwl-chart-printable-graphic-organizer/

Figure 3: Success Criteria for Spelling

Spelling SpG09 SpG10 SpG11 SpG12

Below Stage 3 Minimum Stage 3 Standard Stage 3 High Stage 3
National Identifies Understand world- Explains how Uses knowledge
Literacy errors and wide spelling rules words are spelt of Latin and
Learning attempts to and make choices using a Greek word
Progression correct accordingly combination of origins to explain
Outcome spelling. (colour color). strategies and spelling of
knowledge. technical words.

Figure 4: ‘Twitter Post’ Exit Slip

Hayley Firth/18608638

Andre (2016)

Justification for Formative Assessment Strategies

Consequently, ongoing formative assessments are more engaging and stimulate deeper
learning in contrast to NAPLAN. Evidently, Angelo (2013) found ‘practising is not teaching’
when learning and preparing for content assessed by NAPLAN. For instance, rote-based
learning approaches dominated classrooms when preparing for NAPLAN, such as
memorising the correct spelling for the top 100 ‘high frequency’ words (Angelo, 2013). This
taught students to prioritise quick recall when performing under pressured test conditions
instead of learning deeper conceptual understandings (Mayer, 2002). Consequently, EAL/D
students like Hina are disadvantaged as their learning needs are ignored and they are
encouraged to familiarise SAE, not understand it (Davis, 2016). However, the implemented
KWL formative assessment strategy avoids this by stimulating deeper learning (Zouhor et
al., 2016). Zouhor et al. (2016) identified significant increases in student achievement and
metacognition as students become more engaged with their learning through self
“management, monitoring and evaluation” (p.46). Accordingly, this is beneficial for Hina’s
EAL/D learning needs by assisting her ability to “recognise most misspelt words in (her) own
writing and use a variety of resources for correction” (NESA, 2012, p.109). Moreover, Hina
is encouraged to monitor her spelling ability which stimulates deeper learning (Mayer, 2002)
for understanding how “spelling impacts upon meaning”(ACARA, 2010, p.52) when
composing narrative texts. Therefore, formative assessment approaches are more engaging
for Hina and will stimulate deeper learning than her NAPLAN experience.

Furthermore, formative assessment strategies are more beneficial for Hina’s learning needs
than summative assessment data. The NAPLAN is a standardised test utilised for summative
assessment in the attainment of content knowledge (Karbach, 2014). Rabe (2002) found this
problematic for EAL/D students as it inadequately evaluated the capability of English
language learners. Specifically, NAPLAN has been criticised for ignoring EAL/D factors that
impact test performance (Creagh, 2014) and thus, relying on this diagnostic data as a single
measure of student performance disregards their learning needs (Angelo, 2013). However, the
formative assessment strategies implemented ensured I catered to Hina’s learning needs
through social constructivism. For instance, implementing ‘think-pair-share’ strategies and
partnered inquiry encourages Hina to collaboratively construct meaning and understanding of
spelling concepts in order to gain independence (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, this allows
Hina to access instant feedback and criticism of her learning as interactions between herself
and a higher ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1978) increases her chances of
success (Margetts & Woolfolk, 2019). Similarly, providing Hina with ‘conference’
Hayley Firth/18608638

opportunities employs “dialogic exploratory conversations” (Hertzberg, 2018). This allows

Hina and myself to become “actively involved in a dialogue to seek new knowledge or to
clarify understandings” (Hertzberg, 2018, p.144) when consolidating new learning. Hertzberg
(2018) also highlights how this is vital for EAL/D learners as ‘oracy’ governs “noticing,
recycling, recasting and consolidating of language” (p.144). Overall, it is clear that formative
assessment strategies are more beneficial for Hina and EAL/D learner needs than summative
assessment data.

Finally, formative assessment strategies provide evidence of learning and scope for future
practices. As discussed previously, NAP (2010) did not provide Hina’s NAPLAN Narrative
Writing work samples which limited the educational use of her data and future implications.
However, formative assessment strategies allow sample collection for the analysis of
learning. Evidently, collecting Hina’s KWL will allow me to formatively assess her learning
progressions by contrasting what she knew and what she learned (Zouhor et al, 2016).
Applying outcomes from the success criteria (Figure 3) also provides further insight for how
Hina’s learning has progressed and what can be implemented in future lessons (NESA, 2012).
Similarly, implementing ‘twitter posts’ as a modern form of exit slips encourages Hina to
further inquire her learning and indicates future possibilities for Hina’s future learning (Leigh,
2012).

Conclusion
This report transformed my teaching pedagogy in various ways. Developing an understanding
for analysing NAPLAN results provided insight towards how summative data is utilised in
primary education. Furthermore, analysing Hina Nasim’s NAPLAN data from an EAL/D
perspective expanded my knowledge upon standardised testing and why formative
assessment is vital for catering pedagogical practices to student needs. Exploring and
researching the various strategies for implementing formative assessment also allowed me to
practise standard 5 of the ‘Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ (Australian
Institute for Teaching and Learning [AITSL], 2011) in assessing, providing feedback and
reporting on student learning. In the future, I would hope to analyse how technology impacts
EAL/D learning as NAPLAN becomes progressively online.

References
Australian Institute for Teaching and Learning [AITSL] (2011). Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers. Education Services Australia. Retrieved from:
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-
professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf?sfvrsn=5800f33c_64
Australian Curriculum, Assessing and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2010). National
Literacy Learning Progression. Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from:
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3673/national-literacy-learning-
progression.pdf
Hayley Firth/18608638

Andre, G. (2016). Twitter Post. Retrieved from: Retrieved from:

https://twitter.com/grahamandre/status/785566486492508160
Angelo, D. (2013). NAPLAN implementation: Implications for classroom learning and
teaching, with recommendations for improvement. TESOL in Context, 23 (1) (p.53-73),
Australian National University.
Chua, S.M., Liow, S. & Yeong, S. (2016). Using Spelling to Screen Bilingual
Kindergarteners At Risk for Reading Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3),
227-239. Hammill Institute On Disabilities, SAGE.
Creagh, S. (2014). NAPLAN test data, ESL Bandscales and the validity of EAL/D teacher
judgement of student performance. TESTOL in Context, 24(2), (p.30-50), Institute for Social
Science Research (ISSR): University of Queensland.
Davis, D.B. (2016) Familiarity Versus Understanding: A Formative Assessment. College
Teaching, 64(4), 208-209. George Mason University. Retrieved from:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?
T=P&P=AN&K=118247304&S=R&D=ehh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84v
%2BbwOLCmsEieprNSsKa4SLCWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGqtk
%2B3rLNQuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
Dixson, D.D. & Worrell, F.C. (2016). Formative and Summative Assessment in the
Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55, 153-159. The College of Education and Human
Ecology, The Ohio State University. Retrieved from:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?
T=P&P=AN&K=114465069&S=R&D=a9h&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40Seqa84y9fwOLC
msEiepq9SsKy4SLKWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGqtk
%2B3rLNQuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
Karbach, M. (2014). A Visual Chart on Summative Vs Formative Assessment. Retrieved
from: https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/02/a-visual-chart-on-summative-vs.html
Leigh, R. (2012). The Classroom is Alive with the Sound of Thinking: The Power of the Exit
Slip. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Eduction, 24(2), 189-196.
Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ996265
Margetts, K. & Woolfolk, A. (2019). Educational Psychology, 5th Ed. Pearson, Australia.
Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote Versus Meaningful Learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
College of Education, Ohio State University.
National Assessment Program. (2010). National Assessment Program Literacy and
Numeracy: Narrative writing marking guide. Retrieved from:
https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/2010_Marking_Guide.pdf.
NSW Education Authority Standards [NESA] (2012). NSW Syllabus for the Australian
Curriculum: English K-10 Syllabus. Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from:
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/english-year-
10/english-k-10
Oakley, G. & Fellowes, J. (2016). Students who have additional needs in spelling. A Closer
Look at Spelling in the Primary Classroom, 122-149. Newtown, Australia: Primary English
Teaching Association Australia.
Perelman, L. (2018) in Robinson, N. (2018). NAPLAN's writing test is 'bizarre' but here's
how kids can get top marks. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-
09/naplan-writing-test-bizarre-heres-how-kids-can-get-top-marks/9625852
Rabe, P.S. (2002). The effects of high-stakes testing and accountability measures on selected
teacher's practices and attitudes about teaching reading. Unpublished M.A. thesis. California
State University. Long Beach.
Hayley Firth/18608638

Tompkins, G.E., Campbell, R., Green, D. & Smith, C. (2014). Assessing Students’ Literacy
Development. Literacy for the 21st Century: A balance approach, 2nd Ed, 63-98. Melbourne:
Australia, Pearson.
Vygostky, L. (1978). Mind in Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Winch, G., Johnston, R.R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L. & Holliday, M. (2014). Spelling.
Literacy: Reading, Writing and Children’s Literature, 5th Ed., 345-371. South Melbourne,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
Zouhor, Z., Bogdanovic, I. & Segedinac, M. (2016). Effects of the Know-Want-Learn
Strategy on Primary School Students’ Metacognition and Physics Achievement. Journal of
Subject Didactics, 1(1), 39-49. University of Novi Sad, Serbia. Retrieved from:
http://aes.bio.bg.ac.rs/index.php/JSD/article/view/56/144