PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP 2015

LWA is a contracted supplier of assessment validation services, moderation workshops and professional development services under the Skills for Education and Employment Program funded by the Department of Education and Training

2AGENDA8.30 – 9.00 Registration, on arrival tea and coffee 9.00 – 9.10 Welcome, introductions, overview and purpose of the day9.10 – 10.10 SESSION 1: WRITING MODERATION10.10 – 10.50 SESSION 2: IPA WRITING MODERATION AND VIDEO

COMMENTARY 10.50 – 11.05 Morning tea11.05 – 12.05 SESSION 3: READING MODERATION12.05 – 12.50 SESSION 4: IPA READING MODERATION AND VIDEO

COMMENTARY12.50 – 1.30 Lunch1.30 – 2.30 SESSION 5: PTA VIDEO MODERATION 2.30 – 2.45 Afternoon tea2.45 – 3.20 SESSION 5: PTA VIDEO COMMENTARY 3.20 – 3.50 SESSION 6: LOCAL ISSUES, STRATEGIES, SUCCESSES: PANEL

DISCUSSION3.45 – 4.00 Wrap up and evaluation forms

3RESPONSE TO PROVIDER NEEDS AND REQUESTS

Moderation materials cover the range of client groups

Validated IPA tasks

Assessment types: IPAs/LOAs and PTAs

Range of core skills

Expert commentary

4TODAY WE ARE MODERATING, NOT VERIFYING

Tasks and client responses stand alone for moderation purposes

Consistency in the interpretation and application of the ACSF

Build on professional knowledge

Support teaching and assessment practices

5SESSION 1: WRITING MODERATION

FOLDERS: W1 – W6, ACSF LEVELS 1 - 3

Is the allocated ACSF core skill and level accurate?

Is the task sufficient to support the indicator?

Does the client response demonstrate the indicator?

Would you adapt this task to use in your own context? How?

: What is needed for verification

6SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W1Task 1: Daily Routine

Task: Aligned Task is relevant as it meets immediate personal needs of students and the

context is highly familiar Task construct in relation to classroom activities is given on the CGEA Task

Cover Sheet Questions included allow for limited scaffolding that enable students to use

familiar basic structures and vocabulary to complete the task Questions also help with structure and cohesion in 1.05Client Sample: Demonstrated Assessor notes are somewhat limited, e.g. examples referenced against

vocabulary and grammar are identical Support given and strategies used during the assessment were noted on

the CGEA Task Cover Sheet The assessor comment 'referred to handouts given during class activities'

should be clarified to ensure the student doesn’t rely on the handouts as a model text

Although proofreading, editing and drafting relate to the .05 indicator, good practice is shown by including a first draft and final copy

Some sentences show elements of working at level 2, e.g. use of linking words, and time markers

7SESSION1, COMMENTARY W1Task 2: Breast Screen FormTask: Not Aligned Authentic task Familiar personal data requested, however vocabulary,

content and sentence structure used in the form are more complex than level 1

Relevance of task explained on the CGEA coversheetClient Sample: Demonstrated Assessor Comments template clearly lists focus areas

and performance features for the indicator claimed It wasn’t clear whether the student needed further

assistance apart from the class reading of the form There was no evidence of corrections made/directed by

the teacher even though a comment was made about corrections on the CGEA Task Cover Sheet

8SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W2Task 1: Won Lee Story

Task: Aligned Information about the task and performance is given on the CGEA/ACSF report form The task is designed to meet personal interests (focus area, range), i.e. writing about a

classmate’s life story The task is creative, based on Q&A format to gather information about another

classmate The task can be used to assess both 2.05 and 2.06 indicators The task could be integrated to assess oral communicationClient Sample: Demonstrated ACSF related context, task construct and support given under the CGEA part of the

analysis ACSF Focus areas and performance features were described under the ACSF part of the

template with some examples from the piece of writing If any notes were taken, these were not included, but a comment was made that

‘strategies such as listing to organise information in the description’ were used Some editing is evident in the final typed copy, e.g. some suggested changes were

accepted by the student, but not all Use of a simple correction code would give the client more responsibility for editing Two paragraphs were written, showing the student’s understanding of structure, e.g.

beginning, middle and end

9SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W2Task 2: LetterTask: Aligned Although aligned,the task would be better designed as an absence note Good combination of 2 text types (task 1 & task 2) Task is relevant and meets personal and familiar needs of the student Contextualised, reflects real life needs, e.g. explanation of absenteeism Client Sample: Demonstrated ACSF Focus areas and performance features were described under the

ACSF part of the template with some examples from the piece of writing While verbal feedback/teacher comments were mentioned, these were

not included in the analysis, i.e. what was said apart from clarification in regards to vocabulary used

Some editing took place. Use of a simple correction code would give the client more responsibility for editing

Sequencing was evident in the use of time markers in the text

10

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W3Task: Reunion EmailTask: Aligned Relevant to this student’s personal interests Familiar context Well-designed and engaging task Simple and clear instructions Planning provides support to organise ideas and factual information Email pro-forma in terms of the essential layout provided Task lacks authenticity as the email was not typed and sentClient Sample: Demonstrated Good description of the task construct on the SEE Program

Assessment Task Cover Sheet Very good analysis of the student’s performance against the ACSF

focus areas and performance features No apparent editing in the sample (it seems that the student didn’t

type the final copy)

11

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W4Task 1: Journal EntryTask: Aligned Task focuses on personal and familiar content highly relevant to

the student Text type is familiarClient Sample: Demonstrated Brief context in which the task has arisen is noted on the SEE

Assessment Task Cover Sheet Very detailed analysis, linking performance to ACSF features,

produced on the SEE Program Assessment Recording Sheet Draft and the final are produced and show good practice in

developing writing skills via proofreading and editing even though this was not the requirement of the indicator

All focus areas and performance features are demonstrated Some idiomatic expressions push this writing into level 3, but not

yet exit level

12

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W4Task 2: EmailTask: Aligned Task relevant to client needs Familiar content and context Simple instructions included Basic layout included to aid in writingClient Sample: Demonstrated Brief context in which the task has arisen is noted on the SEE

Assessment Task Cover Sheet Very detailed analysis produced on the SEE Program Assessment

Recording Sheet Draft and the final are included, but not the typed copy of the email Brief comments outlining what needs to be added to the body of

the email are on the draft Teacher prompted the student with headings to elicit more detail

13

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W5Task: Preparation for WE, Reflective Diary

Task: Aligned Writing part of the task is clearly laid out Instructions are clear Task design supports student’s writing skills through

drafting/editing/rewriting process Small changes in questions provide for an opportunity to vary

writing and use new vocabulary and sentence structure Task is relevant and employment related Client Sample: Demonstrated Background to, and structure of the project, was detailed Analysis strengthened with referencing against the ACSF

performance features on the client sample (circling, underlining) Simple editing, rewriting based on the corrections or comments

made by the teacher If used for 2.05, drafting, proofreading and review are evident

14

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W6Task 1: Incident Notification Form

Task: Not Aligned Task is made up of two parts, a scenario and an incident notification form Instructions on page 2 are very clear and easy to follow Task is relevant – workplace context Task is authentic The detailed scenario provides an opportunity for the student to copy almost all

relevant vocabulary and sentences directly onto the form The scenario offers excessive support, a picture prompt and a few dot point

details would be more appropriate at this level The form is thorough and meets the requirements of both indicators, 3.05 and

3.06Client Sample: Not Demonstrated Task construct and context are well described on the SEE Program Assessment

Task Cover Sheet Very detailed analysis with references to specific student performance and

relevant ACSF features The student relied too heavily on the scenario to describe the incident, but the

form is appropriate for the level

15

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W6Task 2: OHS Report and Recommendations

Task: Aligned Task would be improved if the format was based on an authentic

workplace document Well-presented instructions Planning stages aid the writing process for both indicators, 3.05 and 3.06 Task is relevant – workplace context Planning, drafting and proofreading included for 3.05Client Sample: Demonstrated Task construct and context are well described on the SEE Program

Assessment Task Cover Sheet Very detailed analysis with references to specific student performance

and relevant ACSF features Layout of the report followed Consider use of a correction code to assist in the review and drafting

process

16

SESSION 1, COMMENTARY W6Task 3: Letter to the EditorTask: Aligned Task is based on real life scenarios, relevant to the student Clear instructions Planning, reviewing, drafting included to meet 3.05 performance

featuresClient Sample: Demonstrated Task construct and context well described on the SEE Program

Assessment Task Cover Sheet Very detailed analysis with references to specific student

performance and relevant ACSF features Planning – mind map helps the student explore the topic prior to

writing Draft with teacher corrections using correction code included Final submitted– text type with appropriate structure achieved for

3.05, e.g. text layout, paragraphing, sequencing

17

SESSION 2: IPA WRITING MODERATION AND VIDEO COMMENTARY

FOLDERS: MODERATION IPA 1:05 AND 1:06 TASK 1: ABSENCE FORM – CAR ACCIDENT (task and sample)MODERATION IPA 3:05 AND 3:06 TASK 2: WORK EMAIL (task only)

Is the allocated ACSF core skill and level accurate?

Is the task sufficient to support the indicator?

Does the client response demonstrate the indicator? (1;05, 1:06 only)

Would you adapt this task to use in your own context? How?:

18

SESSION 2:

WRITING IPAs

VIDEO COMMENTARY

19

SESSION 3: READING MODERATION

FOLDERS: R1 – R7, ACSF LEVELS 1 – 3Some materials are task only

Is the allocated ACSF core skill and level accurate?

Is the task sufficient to support the indicator?

Does the client response demonstrate the indicator? (where provided)

Would you adapt this task to use in your own context? How?

: What is needed for verification

20

SESSION 3, COMMENTARY R1Task: Facebook StatusTask: Not aligned Text is based on an authentic context, i.e. Facebook

message Layout of the message is clear The picture of a phone contains text in French; the Facebook

symbol would be more appropriate Task would suit learners who use social media (familiarity of

the context) Text complexity, particularly vocabulary and sentence

structure are more complex than level 1 Most questions aligned to .03 indicator To align to .04 indicator include reading strategies that align

to a broader range of .04 focus areas

21

SESSION 3, COMMENTARY R2Task: Automatic Teller MachineTask: Not Aligned Task is authentic with clear purpose and assumes that students are

familiar with using an ATM. Text complexity is higher than what is required at level 1, e.g.

some complex sentences may be challenging for a level 1 reader Vocabulary should be pre-taught and practiced prior to assessment

rather than as part of the assessment task Q 5 is too complex as it requires interpretationClient Sample: Demonstrated Task construct and the context were not explained Focus areas and performance features were listed and highlighted

but not analysed/referenced against the questions/responses given by the student

Q 5 not fully answered, should be put cash into your wallet, purse or handbag

22

SESSION 3, COMMENTARY R3Task: Free Dandenong BusTask: Aligned Authentic and relevant task The text incorporates a simple table and map Good instructions to the assessor on how to administer the

task, i.e. ask questions verbally Sufficient range of questions for the indicatorClient Sample: Demonstrated SEE Program Assessment Task Cover Sheet offers very limited

information of assessment context The student was supported with the assessor asking the

questions aloud and scribing the responses Evidence of self-correction was noted by the assessor Examples of some paraphrased questions would have provided

stronger evidence

23

SESSION 3, COMMENTARY R4Task: Appointment SlipTask: Not Aligned Authentic text, but currently does not align clearly to level

1 or level 2 Question 5 asks for interpretation as the information

sought is not clearly displayed Questions 1, 4 & 5 need rephrasing, they are too difficult to

comprehend by a learner at level 1 (vocabulary in Qs 1 & 4, and complex sentence structure in Q 5)

Some 0.3 and some .04 performance features are covered Task is better suited to assess .03 indicator, although

locating of information is 1.04 Task needs to differentiate components and reflect

appropriate complexity if used to assess across ACSF levels

24

SESSION 3, COMMENTARY R6Task: Australia’s Poverty RisingTask: Not Aligned An authentic topic but the task lacks cohesion An integrated task allowing for demonstration of both

indicators The layout of the text, graph and table could be revised,

i.e. second graph is placed away from the section in the text that it refers to

Suggest a question to also reference the table (statistics) The graph should be in colour to understand the data List of the sources of the article would help in responses to

Q 5 and 6

25

SESSION 3, COMMENTARY R7Task: Mobile Phone SafetyTask: Aligned Text is authentic and relevant Text complexity aligns with the level 3 requirements, i.e. some unfamiliar

elements and some specialised vocabulary Context aligns with the level 3 requirements, e.g. some specialisation in

familiar/known contexts Some questions would benefit from re-wording due to the meta language

used, e.g. Q 9 (signaling words) and Q 10 (figurative language/figurative expression)

The number of questions could be reduced by removing duplications, e.g. Q 5 and 17

Client Sample: Demonstrated SEE Program Assessment Task Coversheet offers very limited information

about the context of the task Assessor notes are well documented on the task Summary of the student’s performance against the focus areas was given

and included questions where the performance features were demonstrated

26

SESSION 4: IPA READING MODERATION AND VIDEO COMMENTARY

FOLDERS: MODERATION IPA 2:03 AND 2:04 TASK 1: Working in Australia: FACT SHEET MODERATION IPA 2:03 AND 2:04 TASK 2: Working in Australia: MICHAEL’S NEW JOB

Is the allocated ACSF core skill and level accurate?

Is the task sufficient to support the indicator?

Does the client response demonstrate the indicator? (1;05, 1:06 only)

Would you adapt this task to use in your own context? How?: What is needed for verification

27

SESSION 4:

READING IPAs

VIDEO COMMENTARY

28

SESSION 5: VIDEO - YOUTH LIT/NUM PTAASSESSOR: FRITHSTUDENT: ZAC

FOLDERS: MODERATION AND VIDEO COMMENTARY YOUTH LIT NUM PTA

ACSF CORE SKILLS: Learning, Oral Communication, Reading and Numeracy

Watch the video and make some notes about the client’s ACSF levels.

Discuss with your colleagues Feedback to the group We will then watch the LWA commentary

29

SESSION 5:

LITERACY NUMERACY YOUTH PTA

VIDEO COMMENTARY

30

Youth PTA Video Commentary Learning: 1.01 Learner Identity: Identified a need to focus in class

Approach to learning is hands on Goals/pathways: Identified a career and a need for a licence

Recognised barriers as transport, bullying and health Planning/organising: Attempted new tasks

Learning: 1.02 Locating, evaluating, Simple strategy of repetition (Community) organising info.: Followed the text with his finger Using prior knowledge Followed assessor instructions and scaffold.: Talked to self through numeracy calculationsCounted on his finger when calculating Learning with/from Followed cues of assessor others: Asked for clarificationAsked for support when needed

31

Oral Communication: 2.07 Range/Audience: Gave an explanation, sought

clarification Register: Emerging level 3 ‘I’ll be honest; I crack he

shits and leave’ – not formal Cohesion: Connection with own knowledge (lettuce) Grammar: Greeting used; sentences with 1 or 2

clauses Emerging level 3 – idiom ‘ I got kicked out’Language was not extended to less familiar situations

Oral Communication: 2.08 Grammar: Assessor’s questions short with simple

verb tenses Comprehension: Comprehends straight forward

questionsAsks questions to clarify meaning

Vocabulary:Familiar and everydayLess familiar context not easily understood

32

Reading: 1.03 Complexity: Understood a limited range with prose and

recipe formatUnderstood short, simple, familiar texts Prediction: Recognised the topic from the

picture Text analysis: With prompting, recognised

recipe format

Reading: 1.04 Text navigation: Located information in both texts

Level of support appropriate for the level Decoding: Careful reading – almost word by wordSounded out words

Repeated the word ‘community’ for fluency Syntax: Stopped at full stopsRecognised symbols ($, grams, degrees)

33

Numeracy: 1.09 Complexity: Skills demonstrated with supportLocated numbers, money, basic metric measureRecognised symbols ($, grams, degrees)

Numeracy: Pre-level 1.10 Number / algebra Calculations took time

Relied heavily on supportContext did not seem highly familiar

Numeracy: 1.11 Written language Could write prices and symbols Oral language Used common language for processing

calculationsUsed language of colour when comparing

34

SESSION 5: VIDEO - EAL LIT/NUM PTAASSESSOR: ALISONSTUDENT: KAREEM

FOLDERS: MODERATION AND VIDEO COMMENTARY EAL PTA

ACSF CORE SKILLS: Learning, Oral Communication, Reading and Writing

Watch the video and make some notes about the client’s ACSF levels.

Discuss with your colleagues Feedback to the group We will then watch the LWA commentary

35SESSION 5:

EAL PTA

VIDEO COMMENTARY

36

EAL PTA Video Commentary Learning: 1.01 Learner Identity: Identified past learning

Areas of need – writing and reading Goals/pathways: Identified a career goal – bus driver

Short term learning objectives - speaking Planning/organising: Attempted all PTA tasks

Learning: 1.02 Locating, evaluating, Has done research with support organising info.: Uses Skype and FacebookMemorisation (meditation)Used pen while reading Prior knowledge / Aware of differences in driving (Iraq/Aust.)

Learning with/from Engaged with assessor, took turns others: Practices English with cousin

37

Oral Communication: 2.07 Range/Context: Gave an explanationUsed conjective links and time markers Register: Aware of formal interview and spoke politely Cohesion: Connection with own knowledge (experience

needed to drive a bus) Grammar: Greeting usedSimple verb tenses with sentences with 1 or 2 clauses

Vocabulary:Familiar and everyday Pronunciation: Understood, spoke slowly and deliberately

Oral Communication: 2.08 Grammar: Assessor’s questions short with simple verb

tenses Comprehension: Comprehends straight forward questions

Asks questions to clarify meaning Vocabulary:Familiar and everyday

38

Reading: 1.03 Complexity: Understood a limited range with prose

and formatted market text

Understood short, simple, familiar texts and

responded correctly Prediction: Understood prediction of both texts

Reading: 1.04 Text navigation:Located information in both texts Decoding: Read word by word

Sounded out words and self corrected Syntax: Stopped at full stops

Recognised symbols (am, pm)

39

Writing: Pre 1.05 Mistakes in writing personal detail (assessor support

needed) Prose writing shows some sequence but sentence structure not

correct Meaning was lost e.g. ‘whe’ seemed to mean ‘we’ and ‘whe’Writing: Pre 1.06

Used a small bank of words but not exit competency Used a limited range of verb tenses Approximates spelling e.g. ‘plan’ for plane Punctuation is not competently demonstrated with ‘run-on’

sentence rather than punctuated sentences.

40SESSION 6:

PANEL DISCUSSION Local issues Strategies Successes Other

41

PLEASE FILL IN YOUR EVALUATION FORM

Contact us:T: 03 9429 7551 F: 03 9429 7221 www.lwa.net.au

SEE admin: see@lwa.net.au Office admin: louise@lwa.net.au Verification:Managers and verifiers: fiona@lwa.net.au mary@lwa.net.au Verifiers: dina@lwa.net.au julie@lwa.net.au jane@lwa.net.au suzana@lwa.net.au

Directors and verifiers: linda@lwa.net.au kath@lwa.net.au