Why Test Online?
The biggest advantage for us is the tailored testing which will show us what our students can do, not what they can’t. We look forward to analysing the improved data that NAPLAN Online will bring.
The majority of the students actually said they enjoyed it. The tests were definitely more visually stimulating than previous years.
This was also mirrored in feedback from Year 7 teachers:
The students appeared to be on task and there was little required interaction with them once they got started.
Technical Readiness and Requirements
The success of conducting NAPLAN online greatly relies on having the technology and infrastructure to support it. This was something we worked very hard to have ready. The college invested in significant upgrades to WiFi capability across the campus to ensure a strong and stable connection for a large number of simultaneous users. Come test day, we encountered no connectivity issues whatsoever. The platform loaded quickly and was responsive between student and teacher devices.
From an ICT Manager’s perspective, and as it is with most things, adequate strategic planning, preparation and testing is required to ensure a smooth run. The main things to consider are internet connectivity (LAN or wireless), devices (BYOD vs school-owned), venue (shared hall or classrooms).
Despite an existing BYOD program from Year 3 upwards, the college selected to administer the test from school-owned and managed devices. This was to ensure a consistent and quality experience for the students. College owned devices were Microsoft Surfaces, which are a 2 in 1 device, incorporating a touch screen, a well-sized detachable keyboard and active stylus. These features were considered important for our students to have access to for NAPLAN online. We allowed students to bring a USB mouse if they wished, but found that very few did as the students were already comfortable working on touch screen devices. ACARA recommends student familiarity with the device of administration for the test. Our current BYOD program requires students to have a touch screen Windows device. Part of the decision extend our 1:1 BYOD program down to Year 3 was to allow our students to become familiar and feel comfortable with the technology. During delivery of the test, I was very pleased to see the children interacting with the touch screen, pinching to zoom in as required and making use of built in tools. Exposure to other online platforms in the classroom appears to have equipped students with general transferrable understanding of common interface elements.
It was pretty easy to do the test (on the computer). I knew how to go forward and back. It wasn't hard to figure out how it worked.
Staff and Student Readiness
There was a small amount of training involved. Coordinators were trained by ISQ and QCAA staff. We then trained the teachers administering the test at a school level. This was followed by a student preparation stage which was relatively simple and fast. This involved familiarising our students with the NAPLAN Portal. We were extremely impressed by how adaptive our students were.
Teacher Observations and Reflections
Testing online was conducted over two weeks. This was due to the number of school devices we had available to use at one time. Several teachers agreed that having the tests stretched out over a two-week period was quite disruptive and that they would rather have the testing completed quickly over the traditional three days. To do this in the future, we would have to make use of student owned devices, which would present more challenges in preparation and ensuring a consistent experience. Despite this feedback, general observations and reflections were positive.
I was unexpectedly happy with the whole process. I thought it was going to be far more painful than it was. When we had a technical problem it was easily solved and there were no major hiccups. I liked that it was paperless and that once the kids finished the tests, that was the end of it for the teachers.
I was impressed with the quality of work our students achieved during the delivery of the test online. Our dedicated teachers worked extremely hard at ensuring our students were familiar with the platform and that they understood their responsibility to pace themselves the same as they would during the paper version and not get ‘click-crazy’.
It ran very smoothly. Preparation is definitely the key. I think that using College devices meant that we had much fewer connectivity issues but it did mean that we had sessions running for the whole 9 days as we couldn’t run many concurrent sessions.
Thoughts on Typing Vs Hand-written
There continues to be much debate around students completing the writing task online. Perceptions in year 7 and 9 are more positive than in earlier years of schooling. Wendy Jurss, Director of Teaching and Learning, commented that student output appeared greater on the writing test than it had in previous years. With students in the high school now having taken part in a 1:1 BYOD program for the last 3 years, it could be suggested that a developing competency with technology contributed to this.
Year 3 teacher Robyn Behr is of the opinion that the writing test should remain hand-written in year 3:
Typing does present an added cognitive load to the process. The move toward online writing assessment appears to be allowing the results of prioritised literacy skills to somewhat rely on underprioritised technology competency. Despite there being General Capabilities relating to ICT skill and Australian Curriculum subjects focused on computer science, technology is still regarding as an "extra" in classrooms. Many schools engage with little more than a superficial implementation of technology in the early years of schooling.
If this is to be the future of NAPLAN and other external assessments, schools are going to have to very seriously consider their technology integration in the primary years, which is severely lacking in many right now. Insufficient exposure to technology tools could potentially hamper student ability to perform to their full potential in online testing. This is not a case against teaching handwriting or a call to replace books and pencils in schools with devices. Fundamentals are important and always will be. Similarly, this is also not the only reason for improved technology integration in schools and is in fact a very small part of the argument*. Nevertheless it remains a consideration that I encourage schools to consider as we move towards the full implementation of NAPLAN online.
*Further discussion on the typing vs hand-written debate can be found in a previous blog post here.
The Age of Digital Texts
A similar argument could be made in relation to the reading tests. Previous experience interacting with digital texts could be beneficial to students completing the reading test online. Year 3 teacher Robyn Behr highlighted a potential issue relating to the random assignment of reading material during the test:
There were six pieces of reading (each one at a different level) and students received them in random order. Some got the hardest piece first. For those confident readers the order was not an issue but for those students whose reading is average or below average it would have been very off-putting and potentially detrimental to their results.
Observations during the reading test did reveal some limitations of the interface. The texts were long and quite small on screen. Many digital reading platforms allow students to flick through texts as you might do in a physical book. A lot of students are accustomed to this. Students were zooming in on texts which raises questions as to how well they are actually reading the text or if they are even reading the entire text. There were several instances where students had zoomed in to texts and then lost the frame with the questions. Improvements to the size and presentation of digital texts on the platform would improve user experience.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Our experience with NAPLAN Online was a positive one. I believe this is greatly due to the hard work of our staff in preparation for the test and ensuring that the technology could support the event from an IT perspective. Student exposure to technology through our BYOD program appears to greatly reduce technology related anxiety and complications. There remains the question of exploring the use of student-owned devices in order to complete tests in a shorter time-frame. A more targeted and mindful approach to developing typing may enable students even more. Further development into the interface will help ensure students have the opportunity to achieve their best. Despite our feelings and experiences conducting the test itself, the outcomes are what we will be paying the most attention to. It will be very interesting to compare student data once it is released.
Special thanks and credit to the staff of The Springfield Anglican College who contributed their feedback to help inform this article:
Earlier this week at their World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple showcased developments with their ARKit. Two exciting developments were the Measure App and their collaboration with Lego. Both of these present possible applications in educational settings and suggest where AR in education is heading.
While many may think of this as a nifty extra on their iPhone or iPad, it represents a huge possibility in how AR can be developed to support mathematics and other subjects in education. Imagine setting children the task of calculating length, perimeter or volume of real-life objects. Add in the ability to ink onto a screen capture or record mathematical process over the top and you have a great way for students to demonstrate their understanding. This is pretty much achievable now, with a few steps in between, but what would be really good to see is a few developers jumping on this capability and honing it to educational needs.
To see the demonstration of Measure, check out the video below.
AR and Lego
I love Lego and was thrilled to see this partnership showcased in in the WWDC keynote. The Director of Innovation from Lego shared how they have used ARKit 2 to develop a new app allowing 3D object detection with Lego Creator Sets. Children can see their Lego world expand right before their eyes and interact with it in exciting ways. Built in challenges and the ability to add extra elements to the scene take play a little deeper.
You can see the Lego AR demonstration in the video below.
What really stood out for me was the collaboration that was enabled through Shared Experiences, a new feature of AR Kit 2. Up to 4 players could share in the experience of the Lego world. Another example produced by Apple was an interactive game between 2 players which also allowed others to observe. This got me thinking about the potential of collaborative student projects and demonstrations in AR. Again, there is a need for developers to mindfully harness this capability for educational purposes.
AR in Education
Examples such as these set my mind buzzing. We now need to see this technology move beyond the simple substitution of what we can do in real-life and offer added functionality or allow students to work in more transformational ways with it. Shared Experiences is promising for collaborative tasks and AR Measurement tools could be harnessed to enable deeper understanding or application of mathematical concepts. I am looking forward to some innovative developers bringing these tools to education.
To see the full Keynote from WWDC, click here.
Do you have any thoughts or ideas about AR in Education? Leave a comment below!
Read all about my thoughts on teaching in the 21st Century, my experiences with technology in the classroom, running a Maker Space, launching STEAM and Design Thinking with students, coding, robotics and much more!
Click the button below: