National Assessment Program Literacy And Numeracy 2015 .

2y ago
26 Views
2 Downloads
844.29 KB
23 Pages
Last View : 18d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Ronan Garica
Transcription

National Assessment ProgramLiteracy and Numeracy 2015 Final ReportThe National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) was held in May 2015 for allstudents in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.The NAPLAN National Report was released by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and ReportingAuthority (ACARA) on Wednesday, 2 December 2015. It is now available in PDF format on ACARA’swebsite (www.nap.edu.au).The PDF report presents tables, graphs and commentary providing comparisons of state/territoryperformance disaggregated by sex, Indigenous status, language background and geolocation.Information is also provided on exemption, withdrawal and participation rates.The Time Series and Cohort Gain sections of the PDF report only provide information in relation toReading and Numeracy.Full details of the results are also available online, in a searchable format, on the ‘NAPLAN results’subsection of the NAP website: http://reports.acara.edu.au/. This includes time series and cohortgain data for all domains including sub-group data by State/Territory.The section on cohort gain includes disaggregations by gender, Indigenous status and languagebackground other than English (LBOTE). Geolocation splits are not included for cohort gain as thereis insufficient data for a number of states and territories in the remote and very remote categories.The Western Australian performance is based on all WA schools.From a contextual perspective it should be noted that: The Persuasive Writing genre was assessed for the fifth time in 2015. Comparisons withperformance in the years before 2011 are not possible.Comparisons of performances over time are made between 2015 and 2008 for Reading, Spelling,Grammar and Punctuation and Numeracy, while Persuasive Writing is compared to its base yearof 2011.Summary of NAPLAN 2015 Results from WA’s perspectiveThe NAPLAN Report presents results in two main ways - mean scores and percentages at or abovethe national minimum standards.‘Effect size’ is a measure used for quantifying the difference between two groups or the same groupover time. Effect size measures are used to complement the statistical tests of significance ofdifferences (likelihood that the difference in results between two groups is due to chance) and focuson the magnitude* of any difference. In the tables, the term ‘significance of difference’ has beenreplaced with the term ‘nature of the difference,’ for comparisons beyond 2013, to reflect that theresults indicate both the statistical significance of the difference as well as the effect size of thedifference.2017/34666v3Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 20151

The nature of the difference is displayed symbolically in tables using the following key: Average achievement is substantially above and is statistically significantlydifferent from the base year (or previous year) for this state/territory.Average achievement is above and is statistically significantly different from thebase year (or previous year) for this state/territory.Average achievement is close to or not statistically different from the base year (orprevious year) for this state/territory.Average achievement is below and is statistically significantly different from thebase year (or previous year) for this state/territory.Average achievement is substantially below and is statistically significantlydifferent from the base year (or previous year) for this state/territory.*An effect size is reported as: ‘substantially above’ if it is 0.5 SD above the base year mean/percentage; ‘substantially below’if it is 0.5 SD below the base year mean/percentage ‘above’ if it is in the range 0.2-0.5 SD above the base year mean/percentage; ‘below’ if it is in therange 0.2-0.5 SD below the base year mean/percentage ‘close to’ if it is if it is in the range 0-0.2 SD above the base year mean/percentage or 0-0.2 SDbelow the base year mean/percentage.The nature of the difference is reported as ‘substantially above’ or ‘substantially below’, ‘above’ or‘below’ or ‘close to’ the comparative mean or percentage of students at or above the nationalminimum standard. The base year (first year of data collection for the purposes of time seriescomparisons) for Persuasive Writing is 2011 and for all other tests is 2008.The terms ‘higher than’ and ‘lower than’ are used for comparisons within sub-groups e.g. girls’performance compared with that of boys, and participation categories, where comparativestatistical significance information has not been provided.Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 20152

MeansTable includes the mean achievement of WA and Australian students on five NAPLAN measures in2015, compared with 2008 and 2014 (except for Persuasive Writing where the comparisons are with2011 and 2014).Table 1: Mean achievement of WA and Australian students in five NAPLAN measures in 2015,compared with 2008 and 2014 except for Persuasive Writing where the comparisons are with 2011and 2014.ReadingYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9JurisdictionMean risonJurisdiction2015/14comparisonWA412.5 Aust425.5 WA488.9 Aust498.5 WA541.2 Aust546 WA585.1 Aust580.2 JurisdictionMean 08comparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison Aust408.8 WA492.5 Aust498.1 WA542 Aust546.7 WA583.9 Aust583.2 SpellingYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 2015 3

Grammar and PunctuationYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9JurisdictionMean 1.3WA571Aust567.9JurisdictionMean 6WA533Aust591.7WA/Aust2015comparison Jurisdiction2015/08comparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison Jurisdiction2015/11comparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison Jurisdiction2015/08comparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison Persuasive writingYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9WA/Aust2015comparison NumeracyYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9JurisdictionMean scoreWA/Aust2015comparisonWA388.6 591.7Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 2015 4

The mean scores in 2015 were close to those for 2014 for all measures and all years (3, 5, 7 and 9)other than Year 3 Persuasive Writing which was above 2015.In 2015, WA’s mean achievement was above that of the base year of 2008 (2011 for PersuasiveWriting) in 13 of the 20 assessments, the largest number of improved mean scores of any state.Mean achievement in Year 7 Persuasive Writing in 2015 was below that in 2011.Areas of improvement are: Year 3 – Reading, Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation;Year 5 – Reading, Spelling and Numeracy;Year 7 – Reading, Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation; andYear 9 – Reading, Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation and Numeracy.Across Australia for the same period there were four assessments with means above the base yearand two assessments with means below the base year.In 2015 there were no statistically significant differences between the Australian means and WAmeans.The following graphs compare Western Australian and Australian mean performances in Reading,Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation, Persuasive Writing and Numeracy across Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in2008 (2011 for Persuasive Writing) and 2015.Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 20155

Figure 1: Comparisons of WA and Australian mean performances in five NAPLAN measures acrossYears 3, 5, 7 and 9 in 2008 (2011 for Persuasive Writing) and 2015.NAPLAN 2008 & 2015 Reading570Mean520470WA 2008420WA 2015Australia 2008Australia 2015370Year 3Year 5Year 7Year 9NAPLAN 2008 & 2015 Spelling570Mean520470WA 2008420WA 2015Australia 2008Australia 2015370Year 3Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 2015Year 5Year 7Year 96

NAPLAN 2008 & 2015 Grammar and Punctuation570Mean520470WA 2008420WA 2015Australia 2008Australia 2015370Year 3Year 5Year 7Year 9NAPLAN 2011 & 2015 Persuasive Writing570Mean520470WA 2011420WA 2015Australia 2011Australia 2015370Year 3Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 2015Year 5Year 7Year 97

NAPLAN 2008 & 2015 Numeracy570Mean520470420WA 2008WA 2015Australia 2008370Australia 2015Year 3Year 5Year 7Year 9Percentages at or above the national minimum standardsTable 2 includes the percentages of WA and Australian students achieving the national minimumstandard in five NAPLAN measures in 2015, compared with previous assessments.Table 2: Percentages of WA and Australian students achieving the national minimum standard infive NAPLAN measures in 2015, compared with 2008 and 2014 (except for Persuasive Writingwhere the comparisons are with 2011 and 2014).ReadingYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9JurisdictionPercentage ator above .3WA94.7Aust95.4WA93.2Aust92.3Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 2015WA/Aust2015comparison mparison 8

SpellingYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9WAPercentage ator above 5comparison mparison mparison Grammar and PunctuationYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9JurisdictionPercentage ator above 92.9WA90.9Aust92.2WA89.4Aust88.9Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 2015WA/Aust2015comparison 9

Persuasive writingYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9WAPercentage ator above omparison mparison mparison NumeracyYearYear 3Year 5Year 7Year 9WAPercentage ator above 015comparison 2015 achievement compared with 2008 (2011 for Persuasive writing)In 2015 the percentages of Western Australian students achieving at or above the national minimumstandards were above (statistically significant) those in the base year of 2008 in seven assessments:Year 3 Reading and Grammar and Punctuation; Year 5 Reading, Spelling and Numeracy; and Year 7Reading and Year 9 Numeracy.However, the percentage of Western Australian students achieving at or above the nationalminimum standard in Persuasive Writing was below the base year of 2011.2015 achievement compared with 2014In 2015 the percentages of WA’s students reaching the national minimum standards were close tothose achieved in 2014 in most assessments.In 2015 the percentages of students achieving at or above the national minimum standard inNumeracy at Years 5 and 9 were above (statistically significant) those achieved in 2014. However,the percentage of Western Australian students achieving at or above the national minimumstandard in Persuasive Writing was below that for 2014.In 2015, WA’s percentages at or above national minimum standard were close to the Australianpercentages in all assessments.Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 201510

Gender:Table 3 show the mean scores for males and females in WA and Australia on the Year 3, 5, 7 and 9Reading, Persuasive Writing and Numeracy assessments and within gender comparisons of the 2015mean scores with the base year of 2008 (Persuasive Writing 2011) and 2014.Table 3: Achievement of students by GenderReadingYear3579WA female422.9Jurisdiction2015/08comparison WA male402.5 Aust female434.8 Aust male416.6 WA female495.0 WA male483.1 Aust female503.9 Aust male493.3 WA female545.6 WA male536.9 Aust female550.7 Aust male541.4 WA female593.6 WA male576.9 Aust female588.5 Aust male572.5 Jurisdiction andGenderLiteracy and Numeracy Final Report 20152015 MeanJurisdiction2015/14comparison 11

WritingYear3579WA female420.8Jurisdiction2015/11comparison WA male395.8 Aust female428.7 Aust male404.5 WA female484.6 WA male458.3 491 Aust male465.7 WA female522.6 WA male489.9 Aust female527.6 Aust male494.3 WA female572 WA male535 Aust female565.3 Aust male528.4 Jurisdiction andGenderAust female2015 MeanJurisdiction2015/14comparison NumeracyYear3579Jurisdiction andGender2015 MeanJurisdiction2015/08comparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison WA female384.9WA male392.2 Aust female393.5 Aust male402.0 WA female481.4 WA male488.0 Aust female488.0 Aust male496.8 WA female533.7 WA male542.7 Aust female538.5 Aust male546.4 WA female591.3 WA male600.5 Aust female586.8 Aust male596.3 Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 201512

National dataNationally, the mean scores for female students are higher than for male students in Years 3, 5, 7and 9 for Reading, Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation and Persuasive Writing.Nationally, in Numeracy, the mean scores for female students are lower than for male students inYears 3, 5, 7 and 9.For all Literacy tests the percentages of female students who achieved at or above the nationalminimum standard were higher than for males. In Numeracy, however, the percentage of femalestudents who achieved at or above the national minimum standard was similar to that achieved bymales.WA dataConsistent with the national data, in WA: the mean scores for female students are higher than for male students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 forReading and Persuasive Writing (and Spelling and Grammar and Punctuation); the mean scores for female students are lower than for male students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 forNumeracy.ReadingIn WA the 2014 and 2015 mean scores for males and the 2014 and 2015 mean scores for femaleswere similar for all year levels.The 2015 mean scores, compared with the 2008 scores, were: higher for both males and females in Year 3; higher for males in Year 5; higher for both males and females in Year 7; and higher for females in Year 9.WritingIn WA the 2014 and 2015 mean scores for males and the 2014 and 2015 mean scores for femaleswere similar for all year levels.The 2015 mean scores, compared with the 2011 scores, were: lower for both males and females in Year 7 (consistent with the national position).NumeracyIn WA the 2014 and 2015 mean scores for males and the 2014 and 2015 mean scores for femaleswere similar for all year levels.The 2015 mean scores, compared with the 2008 scores, were: higher for both males and females in Year 5; and higher for both males and females in Year.Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 201513

Indigenous statusTable 4 includes the mean scores for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in WA and Australiaon the Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 Reading, Persuasive Writing and Numeracy assessments and withinIndigenous status comparisons of the 2015 mean scores with the base year of 2008 (PersuasiveWriting 2011) and 2014.Table 4: Achievement of students by Indigenous status in Reading, Persuasive Writing omparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison 421 Aust Indigenous343.4 Aust Non-Indigenous430.7 WA Indigenous401.6 496 Aust Indigenous425.1 Aust Non-Indigenous502.9 WA Indigenous468.4 WA Non-Indigenous547 Aust Indigenous484 549.6 WA Indigenous508 WA Non-Indigenous591 Aust Indigenous518.3 Aust Non-Indigenous583.8 Jurisdiction and GenderWA IndigenousWA Non-IndigenousWA Non-IndigenousAust Non-Indigenous9Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 20152015 Mean14

WritingYear3579WA Indigenous316.1Jurisdiction2015/11comparison WA Non-Indigenous415.4 Aust Indigenous346.3 Aust Non-Indigenous420.8 WA Indigenous381.2 WA Non-Indigenous478.4 Aust Indigenous406.2 Aust Non-Indigenous482.6 WA Indigenous407.9 WA Non-Indigenous513.5 Aust Indigenous427.8 Aust Non-Indigenous515.6 WA Indigenous446.4 561 Aust Indigenous458.2 Aust Non-Indigenous551.6 Jurisdiction2015/08comparison Jurisdiction2015/14comparison Jurisdiction and GenderWA Non-Indigenous2015 MeanJurisdiction2015/14comparison NumeracyYear3579Jurisdiction and Gender2015 MeanWA Indigenous305.5WA Non-Indigenous395.5 Aust Indigenous330.0 Aust Non-Indigenous402.0 WA Indigenous410.3 WA Non-Indigenous490.9 Aust Indigenous428.0 Aust Non-Indigenous496.5 WA Indigenous469.4 WA Non-Indigenous543.9 Aust Indigenous480.5 Aust Non-Indigenous546.2 WA Indigenous526.1 WA Non-Indigenous601.5 Aust Indigenous531.9 Aust Non-Indigenous595.2 Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 201515

Consistent with the national data, in WA the mean scores for Indigenous students are lower than fornon-Indigenous students in all assessment domains.ReadingIn 2015 the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in WA are substantial atall year levels. For example, in Year 3 Reading 33.4% of Indigenous students were below the nationalminimum standard compared to 4.9% of non-Indigenous students. When considering thegeolocation of these Year 3 Indigenous students, this percentage ranged from 22.5% in themetropolitan area (the highest percentage for this geolocation in Australia) to 51.2% in the veryremote areas.For Indigenous students in WA the 2015 mean scores were: below national 2015 mean scores in all years; close to state 2014 mean scores in all years; close to state 2008 mean scores in Years 3 and 9; higher than state 2008 mean scores in Years 5 and 7.WritingFor Indigenous students in WA the 2015 mean scores were: below national 2015 mean scores in all years; close to state 2014 mean scores in all years; below state 2008 mean scores in Year 7 close to state 2008 mean scores in Years 5 and 7.NumeracyFor Indigenous students in WA the 2015 mean scores were: below national 2015 mean scores in all years; close to state 2014 mean scores in Years 3, 7 and 9; above state 2014 mean scores in Year 5; close to state 2008 mean scores in Years 3 and 7; above state 2008 means in Years 5 and 9.GeolocationGeolocation is based on the location of schools in relation to the access of the population to servicesand is used to disaggregate the data into Metropolitan, Provincial, Remote and Very Remote.Across Australia, with only a few exceptions, the percentage of students working at or above thenational minimum standards, as well as the mean performance, declines from metropolitan to veryremote areas across all domains and year levels.In 2015: the WA means and percentages at or above national minimum standards in very remotelocations was higher than the national means and percentages for this geolocation across allyear groups and all tests;the WA means and percentages at or above the national minimum standard were close to thosefor 2014 in all geolocations across all year levels and test domains.Figure 2 shows the percentages of Western Australian students in each geolocation achieving thenational minimum standard in each assessment.Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 201516

Figure 2: Percentages of Western Australian students in each Year group and geolocationachieving the national minimum standard in each assessment domain.Literacy and Numeracy Final Report 201517

When considering Indigenous status and geolocation together, while the same patterns ofperformance for geolocation alone are evident for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students,the extent of the differences in achievement are more pronounced for Indigenous students. Forexample, in 2015 Year 3 Indigenous students in WA living in very remote locations had a meanReading score that was 130 points (2.5 bands) lower than that of non-Indigenous students in thesame geolocation and 75 points (or 1.4 bands) lower than that of Indigenous students from themetropolitan area. For non-Indigenous students the difference for Year 3 students between veryremote and metropolitan geolocations was 32 points (0.6 of a band).Improvements in mean performance over time which were noted for all WA students were alsoreflected in improvements at the geolocation level.2008–2016 Tim

Grammar and Punctuation and Numeracy, while Persuasive Writing is compared to its base year of 2011. Summary of NAPLAN 2015 Results from WA’s perspective. The NAPLAN Report presents results in two main ways - mean scores and percentages at or above the national minimum standards.

Related Documents:

Traditionally, Literacy means the ability to read and write. But there seems to be various types of literacy. Such as audiovisual literacy, print literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, web literacy, technical literacy, functional literacy, library literacy and information literacy etc. Nominal and active literacy too focuses on

Part VII. LIteracy 509 Chapter 16. A Primer on Literacy Assessment 511 Language Disorders and Literacy Problems 512 Emergent Literacy 514 Emergent Literacy Skill Acquisition 516 Assessment of Emergent Literacy Skills 520 Assessment of Reading and Writing 528 Integrated Language and Literacy Skill Assessment 536 Chapter Summary 537

at the local grocery store. You can have information out about the adult literacy program, family literacy program, daycare, Aboriginal Head Start program, Friendship Centre and any other organization that is involved in literacy. Talk to people about why literacy is important. Tell them about the literacy programs happening in your community.

health literacy is complex and fluid. Research in this area has focused largely on 'functional health literacy', which reflects basic reading and writing skills [25, 26]. Two other dimensions of health literacy have received in-creasing attention in recent decades: interactive and crit-ical health literacy. Interactive health literacy refers to

Keywords: Health literacy, Digital literacy, eHealth literacy, Self-rated health, Nursing students, HLQ, eHLQ, eHLA . self-reported capability to navigate and act in the health-care sector. In 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) re-ported a positive correlation between self-rated health (SRH) and HL [25]. SRH is a reliable indicator of .

Learning Pathways in Literacy P a g e 2 Early Literacy Pathways 2 Learning Pathways in Literacy A comprehensive document on Early Literacy Development: From Foundational Communication to Advanced Thinking, Reading and Writing Why we created this document The Early Literacy Pathway was created to support educators, caregivers and

One of the remarkable frameworks that sheds light upon new media literacy was developed by Chen et al. (2011), Based on two continuums: functional media literacy to critical media literacy; and consuming media literacy to prosuming media literacy, new dimensions of media

I. Literacy for the 21st Century 5 Literacy for the 21st Century / New Ways of Learning 6 What a Difference a Century Makes! 8 Why Media Literacy is Important 9 Questioning the Media 10 II. The CML MediaLit Kit 11A Framework for Learning and Teaching in a Media Age Media Literacy: From Theory to Practice to Implementation 12