The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 297–313 | Cite as

School leaders’ identification of school level and teacher practices that influence school improvement in national numeracy testing outcomes

  • Tracey Muir
  • Sharyn Livy
  • Sandra Herbert
  • Rosemary Callingham
Article
  • 191 Downloads

Abstract

Since 2008, all Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 have been assessed in literacy and numeracy through an annual National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test. In 2015, a team of mathematics education researchers across Australia conducted a nationwide research project to identify school practices and policies that were consistent between schools that showed growth and/or improvement in their NAPLAN numeracy results. This paper reports findings from three case study schools, using a school improvement framework to interpret evidence gathered from the schools’ principals and school leaders. The study has particular implications for policy makers and school leaders who may be seeking ways to improve mathematical practices in their own jurisdictions and schools.

Keywords

School improvement NAPLAN Effective practices Data 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Office of the Chief Scientist.

References

  1. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy: Report of a study carried out for the Teacher Training Agency. London: King’s College, University of London.Google Scholar
  2. Association, Australian Primary Principals' (APPA). (2013). Primary principals: Perspectives on NAPLAN testing and assessment. Sydney, NSW: Canvass.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Academy of Sciences. (2016). The mathematical sciences in Australia: A vision for 2015. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (1997). Policy on numeracy education in schools. http://www.aamt.edu.au/About-AAMT/Position-statements/Numeracy-education.
  5. Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER]. (2017). Progressive achievement. Retrieved from https://www.acer.org/pat.
  6. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2016a). Information for Parents. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/NAPLAN_2016_information_for_parents_web.pdf.
  7. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2016b). MySchool. Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/.
  8. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2016c). The Australian curriculum mathematics V8.3. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/mathematics/curriculum/f-10?layout=1.
  9. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2015). High value-add schools: Key drivers of school improvement. Sydney, NSW: Department of Education and Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2002). Challenging and effective teaching in junior primary mathematics: What does it look like? In M. Goos & T. Spencer (Eds.), Mathematics making waves (Proceedings of the 19th Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, pp. 309–318). Adelaide, SA: AAMT.Google Scholar
  12. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Habits of mind. http://www.chsvt.org/wdp/Habits_of_Mind.pdf.
  13. Dulfer, N., Polesel, J., & Rice, S. (2012). The experience of education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families: An educator’s perspective. https://www.whitlam.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/409735/High_Stakes_Testing_An_Educators_Perspective.pdf.
  14. Geiger, V., Anderson, J., & Hurrell, D. (2017). A case study of effective practice in mathematics teaching and learning informed by Valsiner’s zone theory. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goss, P., Hunter, J., Romanes, D., & Parsonage, H. (2015). Targeted teaching: How better use of data can improve student learning. Melbourne: Grattan Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon, OXON: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximising impact on learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Howell, A. (2012). The silent voice in the NAPLAN debate: Exploring children’s lived experiences of the tests. Paper presented at the joint AARE/APERA International Conference, Sydney.Google Scholar
  19. Howell, A. (2017). ‘Because then you could never get a job!’: Children’s constructions of NAPLAN as high-stakes. Journal of Educational Policy, 32(5), 564–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marzano Research Laboratory. (2012). Marzano levels of school effectiveness. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/InterimCommittee/2012/Z02MarzanoLevels.pdf.
  21. Masters, G. N. (2010). Teaching and learning school improvement framework. http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=monitoring_learning.
  22. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook and the coding manual foor qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Muir, T. (2008). Principles of practice and teacher actions: Influences on effective teaching of numeracy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parnis, A. J., & Petocz, P. (2016). Secondary school students’ attitudes towards numeracy: An Australian investigation based on the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Australian Educational Researcher, 43(5), 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reezigt, G. J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rogers, S. L., Barblett, L., & Robinson, K. (2016). Investigating the impact of NAPLAN on student, parent and teacher emotional distress in independent schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(3), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson, G., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(3), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Triplett, C. F., & Barksdale, M. A. (2005). Third through sixth graders’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wyn, J., Turnbull, M., & Grimshaw, L. (2014). The experience of education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families. A qualitative study. Sydney: The Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationDeakin UniversityWarrnamboolAustralia

Personalised recommendations