Module 1.4 - Moderation PowerPoint

Report
Language and
Literacy Levels
Module 1.4
Internal Moderation
September 2014
Internal Moderation
The purposes of internal moderation are to:
• to confirm the accuracy of assigned levels with
colleagues
• to develop consistency of assigned levels across the
school
• to develop consistency between assigned Levels
and other data sets eg. NAPLaN, school grades,
previous Levels etc
• to develop consistency across schools (NB. In some
cases, this process may extend across a Partnership)
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide
Benefits of Internal Moderation
Assigning accurate and consistent Levels:
• ensures that the correct amount of funding
will be paid to schools
• means schools are confident with their
Levels data
• enables schools to monitor EALD student
progress
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide
Building Accuracy and Consistency
To build accuracy and consistency:
• inexperienced teachers should work with a
partner who is experienced in assigning Levels
• refer to the R- 7 or Years 8 -12 Moderated
Evidence
• decide on some benchmarks (eg. agreeing that
one set of evidence is at Level 3, another at
level 6 and another at Level 9) and then
compare other sets of evidence to these.
Internal Moderation processes
Option 1 - all staff assign Levels
• when Levels have been assigned, groups of teachers
share their copies of one set of evidence and discuss
the accuracy of the assigned Level
• this process and the discussion helps establish
common understandings of consistency i.e. one
teacher’s Level 4 is if the same standard as another
teacher’s Level 4
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide
Option 2 – a panel assigns Levels
• when Levels have been assigned, panel members
place texts in piles of same assigned Level (eg. all
Level 6s together, all Level 7s together, all Level 8s
together etc)
• after enough texts have been added to a pile, a
teacher with more experience scans through the
pile and gives feedback to the teacher who
assigned the Level if he/she thinks it is inaccurate
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide
Option 3 – an individual EALD teacher/
teacher/school leader undertakes moderation
• teacher is reliant upon own experience and
Moderated Evidence
• this is not the preferred option in schools with
more than a few EALD students because:
o there is no or little opportunity for professional
discussion to confirm the accuracy of assigned
Levels
o knowledge of language remains with one staff
member and is not shared with others
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide
After Assigning Levels
• Compare Levels data to other data sets
o e.g. Are Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 students’ Levels similar to their
NAPLaN writing results?
o e.g. Are subject English grades similar to Levels?
If they are different, this may need to be explored
• The reason/s for the difference may be valid (e.g.
student has recently had a long term absence)
• If one of the reasons is the accuracy of the Levels then
this should be addressed in the school’s planning for
next year’s assigning of Levels (e.g. greater use of
Moderated Evidence, a panel instead of a individual,
further training about the Levels)
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide
The Next Step
After discussing the possible reasons for any
variations between different Levels and other
data sets and making any necessary adjustments
to the school’s internal moderation process, what
are the implications for future planning and
teaching?
Faculty of Edit this on the Slide Master
The University of Adelaide

similar documents