Author: admin

Posted on

Some thoughts about … the KS2 Reading test 2017

Whilst we anticipate the possible changes to teacher assessment and the Interim framework for 2018, we do know that the current testing arrangements should remain the same. With this in mind, it is useful to begin unpicking the texts and questions presented in this Summer’s Reading SAT paper to inform teaching and learning for the forthcoming year.

After the ‘surprise’ or ‘shock’ (!) of the KS2 Reading test last year, many schools were hoping that they had been able to address the higher expectations this year with the ‘live’ test to reflect on from 2016. Certainly, the initial test results for 2017, as announced in the Statistical First Release 4th July, would suggest that this was the case. A 5 percentage point rise from 66% to 71% of children reaching the expected standard, and the accompanying 5 marks increase in the marks required to achieve a scaled score of 100 (up from 21 marks in 2016 to 26 marks in 2017). So, what are the similarities that we can draw from these two tests and possibly take forward into our teaching and learning opportunities for 2017-18?

The word reading required to access the texts in 2017 was, as for 2016, in line with age-appropriateness and reasonably fair. In some ways, the 2017 texts could be viewed as more accessible since the contexts were child-friendlier than those in 2016: a story about a cat followed by information including as section about David Walliams. But as with the 2016 test, it wasn’t necessarily the word reading of the texts that caused issues: it was understanding of the questions and the complexity of comprehending the texts. The type of questions asked drew parallels with those in 2016  (my question stem handout base on the questions from the 2016 test can be found in the Resources section of my website) and, as for last year, the most frequent content domains were word meaning (2a), retrieval (2b) and inference (2d). However, a close look at pages 4 & 5 from the Test Mark Scheme document sheds light on how the marks were distributed differently this year.

Marks for text 1 (Gaby to the Rescue): 2a, 2b, 2d evenly spread; 1 question from 2c                                                                                                                                                        Marks for text 2 (Swimming the English Channel): spread across 5 of the 8 domains with 8/17 marks from 2b -nearly half of the marks for this text were questions involving retrieval of information and identification of key details Marks for text 3 (An Encounter at Sea): 14/18 marks from domain 2d -making inferences from the text and explaining and justifying inferences with evidence from the text

It is this shift in the distribution of questions linked to the different content domains which is quite noticeable for 2017. The bulk of inference questions were in relation to text 3 unlike in 2016 when the inferential questions were largely related to the second text.

Let’s now take each text in turn and highlight just a few of the elements to be mindful of in using this test to support teaching and learning. I have extracted the texts from the 2017 Reading booklet to make unpicking the grammar, etc., a little easier (this is available within the Resources section of my website).

Text 1 Gaby to the Rescue: The first text in theory should be the simplest, but children had to grapple with complex sentence structure and keep a clear track of pronouns use throughout the whole piece in order to ensure literal, let alone deeper, understanding of this story. The ability to engage in ‘active’ reading and make use of different types of inferential understanding, whilst reading, was key to comprehending this text even though there were only 5 inference (2d) questions. Understanding the ongoing narrative and sequence of events relied on interpretation beyond the literal.
Text 2 Swimming the English Channel: In some respects, this text was easier to comprehend than the first text and was accompanied by a set of questions that mainly explored content domain 2b (Retrieve and record information). This was the longest of the 3 texts and after the complexities of text 1, it required stamina to locate the detail required to answer the retrieval questions -mistakes could easily be made if skills for quickly locating information were insufficiently developed. Children needed to be able to scan the separate sections for specific information and hone in on the correct sub-heading or FAQ before extracting or using deduction to formulate an answer.
Text 3 An Encounter at Sea: The final text presented another narrative, but this time children were asked to demonstrate their ability to comprehend by mainly inferential questioning. Again, at this point within the test the expectation for stamina was evident. This is the second longest text and clearly -by its position within the paper- the most complex. Although the last two years have not presented a poem as part of the Reading test, the language choices in text 3 were of a poetic nature with a wealth of figurative language, similes and expanded noun phrases for children to contend with. Study of poetry as part of the reading diet during the year would have supported children in accessing and interpreting this text.

Obviously, as always there are many factors to unpick within the Reading test, but hopefully this has provided some initial insights.

Posted on

Some thoughts about … KS2 Teacher Assessment of Writing 2017

As of September this year, the cohort of children entering Year 6 will have -in theory- fully accessed the ‘not so now’ New Curriculum. Although learning from these programmes of study may have been more limited during their Year 3, for the past couple of years we can assume that this cohort has been working towards the writing content of both Lower and Upper Key Stage 2. With its focus on knowledge, clear progression and the principle of ‘mastery’, the National Curriculum was introduced with solid aims and principles, particularly for English and mathematics. However, the reality is that no matter how good the curriculum principles and content are, the curriculum invariably becomes the product of the assessment system it is judged by. In relation to the interim standards for writing, this would appear to be the case for a few aspects. Some statements within the three standards for the end of key stage 2 judgements can be easily cross-referenced to the curriculum, whilst others are much more implicit.

In light of the moderations that I was involved in across several authorities during 2017 and the regular moderation opportunities that I attend through training, here are some thoughts regarding just a few of the key strengths and areas to be mindful of going forward.

The focus on the Greater Depth statements during the STA moderator training and the subsequent sharing of the materials via local authorities definitely had an impact on both teachers and moderators. Evidencing the ‘managing shifts between levels of formality’ statement from the Interim framework certainly became something of a ‘buzz’ phrase. I read many journalistic pieces which clearly demonstrated the child’s ability to shift between levels of formality, and yet this is a case in point for the assessment driving the curriculum. Appreciating and conveying different levels of formality is implied within the programme of study, however it possibly wasn’t addressed in quite the same way until it was flagged through the STA moderator training earlier this year. But what of the other strengths this year? There were many, but certainly worth mentioning is that this year there was greater evidence of passive verbs to demonstrate the statement ‘using passive and modal verbs mostly appropriately’. This also helped to support another of the statements within the Expected standard: reflect the level of formality required mostly correctly. Clearly there had been more focused teaching on the passive voice and teachers showed a much greater awareness of text types that this could be used in. Grammar overall seemed more embedded, and its application less contrived than when the standards were introduced last year.

In terms of the less successful elements, there still seemed a degree of confusion in understanding the first statement within the Expected standard: creating atmosphere, and integrating dialogue to convey character and advance the action. For this statement, we can reference the national curriculum. Within the Upper KS2 programme of study for writing composition, the wording is practically identical to the assessment statement: in narrative, describing settings, character and atmosphere and integrating dialogue to convey character and advance the action. As a statement within the curriculum, this forms a progression from the introduction of dialogue and punctuating direct speech at Lower KS2. Therefore, when working at the Expected standard by the end of the key stage, the inclusion of dialogue has to have purpose within the overall piece.
It is also worth reminding ourselves what the word dialogue means: Dialogue is communication or discussion between people or groups of people (taken from Collins dictionary)
Dialogue needs to be an exchange between characters and is not simply the inclusion of speech marks within a narrative. I read lots of superb narratives and the range of stimulus for writing was truly inspiring. However, when trying to find examples of ‘integrated dialogue to advance the action’, at times it was extremely difficult to identify the use and purpose of dialogue. For example, I read many different stories based on the short film Alma where the ‘dialogue’ was incorrectly cited as Alma’s thoughts rather than an exchange between characters.

Another statement within the Expected standard that had mixed understanding relates to the requirement that children are secure in ‘using a range of cohesive devices’. Again, we can link straight back to the curriculum. The cohesive devices (as stated in Appendix 2 National Curriculum) refers to words used to show how the different parts of a text fit together so that they create cohesion. ‘Cohesive devices’ refers to the use of determiners, pronouns, conjunctions, adverbials and ellipsis -although this needs to be used sparingly to create impact! The standard states that cohesive devices need to be used both within and across sentences and paragraphs. In most writing cohesion was clear from paragraph to paragraph, but not always as evident within paragraphs. Food for thought and hopefully something to think about for the coming year if the standards remain similar.

As we await to see what will become of the Interim framework going forward, it is worth remembering that the Exemplification materials that accompanied the framework can still be useful teaching and learning tools. The unannotated writing samples can be useful for children to discuss and deconstruct, and the annotated versions can be useful to support teacher subject knowledge.