Putting NAPLAN literacy testing to the test

The major drawback of these tests, however, is the random selection of aspects of grammar and punctuation. Whereas all of the spelling questions are placed together, there appears to be no logical order to the other questions. For both Year 3 and Year 5 students, for example, a question testing the comparative versus the superlative is followed by a question asking students whether or not to capitalise a proper noun. The lack of order means that teachers and their students are unlikely to be able to use the tests as teaching tools as there is no systematic assessment of particular aspects of grammar and punctuation. How is this, then, a collection of “rich diagnostic data”?

Some test items use misleading terminology. In the Year 3 test of language conventions, for example, item 34 asks “Which sentence is correct?” Possible choices are:

a) The children on the oval playing football.
b) The children playing football on the oval.
c) The children were playing football on the oval.
d) The children who were playing football on the oval.

The answer is c). This question must be testing students’ knowledge of what constitutes a complete sentence because three of the four responses are sentence fragments. Yet, the question itself asks “Which sentence is correct?” There is only one sentence here.

The new Australian curriculum places a strong emphasis on the development of skills in editing and proofreading. The structure of the NAPLAN tests of language conventions gives students little opportunity to demonstrate such skills. For example, in the items that require students to insert commas to corral words, phrases or clauses, a number of possible locations are given. Why? In editing their own work, students should have the capacity to identify not only which punctuation is required, but where it should be placed in a sentence.

According to one lecturer in language education, “In order for student to be able to discuss specific grammatical concepts and language use within a text, it is advantageous to provide them with a standard grammar vocabulary. The language for talking about, and describing, language is referred to as ‘metalanguage’. Developing students’ metalanguage will better equip them to engage in text and grammar analysis and dialogue, leading to the improvement of the structural aspects of their written texts, In order to develop students’ metalanguage, the teacher needs to use the terminology consistently an regularly, whenever text grammar discussions take place (‘Grammar knowledge and students’ writing’, in Curriculum Leadership Journal, Vol 5, Issue 24, July 2007).”

The Education Review article by ACARA also claims that “Teachers use the results of common testing to identify weaknesses and strengths in individual students and within groups. This feedback enables teachers to focus their teaching and learning programs in the future.” If the ultimate goal to support the development of students’ skills in the application of language conventions, there is no room for error in the collection of what ACARA calls “rich diagnostic data”. The design and content of the tests must be clear, accurate and useful. This is not the case at present.

In establishing a stand-alone test of language conventions, the education authorities are identifying spelling, grammar and punctuation as essential aspects of language acquisition. A valid test instrument for students in this area must be absolutely clear in its structure and purpose. It must set high standards, complement the expectations of the reading and writing tests, and provide the best possible guidance for teachers.

An analysis of the 2010 NAPLAN tests of language conventions for Years 7 and 9 will be provided in a subsequent article.