ED1120 Exam

In the use of Board of Studies syllabuses, explain the use of the following documents at school level: Scope and Sequence, Teaching Programme, Assessment Program. Evaluate the part that each of these documents plays in determining what is taught?

'Scope and Sequence' refers to what is to be taught, and when it is to be taught (order) respectively

From the dept of Education in Tasmania: (I could not find any overviews at BOS NSW)

Scope and sequence is vital in whole school planning and in the planning of learning sequences. Scope includes decisions about what is significant and manageable. Sequence includes decisions about what is necessary for sequential development of both skills and concepts.

'Teaching Programme': A document that shows how a KLA can be divided into topics and subtopics, and how each subtopic addresses the sylabus outcomes.

The teaching programe takes the scope and breaks it down into lessons that fit the desired sequence. Typically it has tables or matrices which enable the connection of lessons and learning outcomes to be understood at a glance. Ideally it is a document that makes the resources and work put into a lesson available for future lessons with other teachers and others schools. In this case it would save a lot of 're-inventing the wheel' - but there is also the ever present risk of teaching programmes becoming dogma, and being used slavishly and boringly. Each new outing for a course should involve a transformation of the teaching programme to suit the needs and situation of the new body of students.

The teaching program should also include an Assessment program to show what will be assessed, how it will be assessed and when.

'Assessment Program' Is a document that outlines the assessment tasks, dates, sylabus outcomes, weightings and components for a subject or unit of work. See example here
Hopefully the assessment provides some real evidence that learning has taken place.

Evaluation:
What is the reason for the sylabus and its associated documents?

A positive angle is that they provides form to the wide range of knowledge that is supposed to be imparted to students. By setting a broad but clear minimum standard of what students should learn in each KLA this means that no student should miss out on any important aspects of a subject. The various BOS sylabi set out in a general way what should be taught, but leave the specific content to the school and teacher to fill in. This allows teaching to be tailored for different communities of learners even though they may have varying core beliefs about the best forms of delivery. Additional or extended content is possible within this framework.

A negative angle is that they are part of a 'regulatory' mindset - that all outcomes will be achieved if they are only described, enforced and assessed enough: It is my belief that this type of thinking is a delusion. All the regulation in the world will not make dry, dusty and contextless information transfer to students. This is a top down approach typified by conservative political sentiments about bringing back the 3 Rs. It just won't work - it is the difference between rote learning and deep learning. Without creativity, flexibility, and relevance education is just noise that passes 'in one ear and out the other'.

Having said that, education is a big business, and it needs to be accountable. There are many stakeholders in the process including government departments, political groups, employers, parents and the students themselves.

So within a school level the use of these documents can enhance learning outcomes by giving form to subjects, reassuring stakeholders that important stuff will not be missed, and hopefully not tie down and exhaust good teachers with red tape.

What part do these documents play in determining what is taught?

According to Hattie's research the Physical School, Principle and by implication the Sylabus plays only a very small part in learning outcomes for students. I read this to mean that accross all the range of schools tested there was little difference between schools which closely followed the sylabus and those which did not (more research required here?). After the effect of the students themselves, it is the quality of the teacher that makes the most difference.

Do the sylabus documents help or hinder the expert teacher?

Hattie identifies that Expert teachers are 'better decision makers' (by which he means they are good at improvising and choosing the most effective methods on the run) and cites a study that showed that none of the expert teachers used lesson plans, but that they could easily describe the scope and sequence of their lessons. So instead of rigidly following a teaching programme these teachers were confident and skilled enough to flexibly taylor their teaching to meet the specific needs of the students.

The transition from good to expert teacher seems to involve a jump from the methodical to the artistic. The methodical approach will benefit from the discipline of the sylabus, teaching programme and assessment program. The expert approach transcends the methodical/formulaic and takes teaching to a higher level. The expert is the master chef, the maestro, the iconoclast, the artist who builds bridges while the methodical ones are plodding away around the obsticles.

As a beginning teacher I am still at the methodical stage, and the lofty heights of the expert teacher seem quite out of reach!


For me the discipline of writing a Teaching Programme and Assessment program based on the BOS sylabus is helpful. It is a relief to not have to re-invent the whole scope, and it gives good pointers to ensuring that nothing is left out. I have not yet found myself thinking my teaching is being constrained or narrowed by it. There is room to add additional content, and make connections accross disciplines. I can see how a well written programme is a resource to be used again and again, and a library of these would be a great asset to any school.

In summary: The influence of the Syllabus/Teaching Programe on what is actually taught depends on whether the teacher is a beginner, experienced or expert. Less skilled teachers will follow the BOS scope and sequence more closely and they will rely on making more detailed teaching/assessment programmes as part of their lesson preparation and delivery. Expert teachers transcend this methodical use of the syllabus, they discard the lesson plan, and they taylor each lesson to the intellectual, social and emotional situations of their students. Students of these expert teachers still cover the scope required by BOS, but are more likely to have a deeper knowledge, and better learning outcomes.