Abstract:
While research pertaining to the impacts of NAPLAN on children remains sparse, NAPLAN’s negative effects on many children are a prevalent pattern within the available data, as is the absence of contrary evidence. This presentation outlines several multidimensional and overlapping causes for this unintended outcome through a study which explored 105 children’s lived experiences of NAPLAN in two Queensland Catholic Primary schools serving different SES communities. Data collection incorporated a visual participatory research methodology involving the collection of children’s drawings about NAPLAN, with the children as the primary interpreters of their images, as well as classroom observations and focus group discussions.
Data analysis revealed that while systemic attempts to reduce the stakes of the test were successful for principals and teachers, many children experienced NAPLAN as high-stakes, within a confusing context of contradictory adult constructions of the purpose and accuracy of the test, and the extent of its significance. This lack of accurate and consistent information led to some children experiencing NAPLAN as high-stakes for personal reasons, such as a fear of being judged as foolish or letting their families down. Other children feared that a low NAPLAN score could result in failing a subject, grade retention, or in one case, being asked to leave their school. In the higher SES school, children’s experiences of the tests as high-stakes were exacerbated by parental aspirations to enrol their children in their secondary school of choice.
The disjuncture between everyday school life and NAPLAN also emerged as an issue of considerable significance for the children. The most obvious disparities pertained to the tests themselves, encompassing NAPLAN’s idiosyncratic presentation and protocols, unfamiliar vocabulary and content, and the lack of effective feedback. This issue of feedback was raised by the Year seven children rather than the adults in the study, who felt that such data should not be shared with children. However in addition to this disparity, the children also experienced often abrupt shifts from a diverse range of collaborative and individual learning experiences to discrete NAPLAN practice, which at times triggered equivalent negative shifts in the children’s relationships with their teachers and peers, resulting in further confusion, in addition to isolation and disenfranchisement with NAPLAN. As a result of the confusion and disjuncture surrounding NAPLAN, many Year seven children in particular reported negative impacts on their learning outcomes, leading them to question the purpose of NAPLAN and consequently disengaging from the tests and associated preparation.
Data analysis revealed that while systemic attempts to reduce the stakes of the test were successful for principals and teachers, many children experienced NAPLAN as high-stakes, within a confusing context of contradictory adult constructions of the purpose and accuracy of the test, and the extent of its significance. This lack of accurate and consistent information led to some children experiencing NAPLAN as high-stakes for personal reasons, such as a fear of being judged as foolish or letting their families down. Other children feared that a low NAPLAN score could result in failing a subject, grade retention, or in one case, being asked to leave their school. In the higher SES school, children’s experiences of the tests as high-stakes were exacerbated by parental aspirations to enrol their children in their secondary school of choice.
The disjuncture between everyday school life and NAPLAN also emerged as an issue of considerable significance for the children. The most obvious disparities pertained to the tests themselves, encompassing NAPLAN’s idiosyncratic presentation and protocols, unfamiliar vocabulary and content, and the lack of effective feedback. This issue of feedback was raised by the Year seven children rather than the adults in the study, who felt that such data should not be shared with children. However in addition to this disparity, the children also experienced often abrupt shifts from a diverse range of collaborative and individual learning experiences to discrete NAPLAN practice, which at times triggered equivalent negative shifts in the children’s relationships with their teachers and peers, resulting in further confusion, in addition to isolation and disenfranchisement with NAPLAN. As a result of the confusion and disjuncture surrounding NAPLAN, many Year seven children in particular reported negative impacts on their learning outcomes, leading them to question the purpose of NAPLAN and consequently disengaging from the tests and associated preparation.