Australian NAPLAN testing: In what ways is this a ‘wicked’ problem?

Abstract

This article employs Rittel and Webber’s ‘wicked’ problem as a heuristic device for enhancing understanding about National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) testing in the Australian education context. Using a research project with seven independent schools in New South Wales, Australia, which analysed NAPLAN data from primary (elementary) students in years 3 and 5, this article highlights the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem of NAPLAN testing, and standardised testing more generally. The research project, as a catalyst for the article, evidenced a set of difficulties, particularly for smaller primary schools, and highlighted the ways in which these schools experienced many of the challenges that the literature indicates are evident in the current regimes of standardised testing. The article focusses on problematising NAPLAN’s use in Australia and uses the literature to critique its application. It then outlines Rittel and Webber’s criteria that determine whether a problem might be ‘wicked’ and applies this as a lens for considering NAPLAN testing. In problematising NAPLAN testing and applying wicked problem theory to the issue, this article asserts that many of the challenges can be managed and indeed may empower and liberate stakeholders.

Accounting for language background differences in the Australian National Assessments – Literacy and Numeracy

“…The data combine students' NAPLAN scores in numeracy and reading with administrative data. NAPLAN has been criticised for only measuring only limited aspects of what schools do, its inadequacy as a diagnostic tool, supposed adverse impacts on students and schools, and large errors in the estimates of student and school differences (Brady ; Harris et al ; Wu ; Johnston ). However, NAPLAN is the only instrument allowing parents, teachers and schools to easily and objectively compare their students' performance against national and state‐wide benchmarks.…”

Australia’s National Assessment Programme rubrics: An impetus for self-assessment?

“…As is evident elsewhere internationally (see, for example, Whetton 2009 for a historical analysis of national curriculum assessment in England), the implementation and uses of data from large-scale national assessment programmes has led to much scholarly debate and contestation in the educational community. NAPLAN is widely described as a high-stakes test, although it is worth noting that the literature can be divided into groups with respect to whether the test is described as high-stakes for schools (Johnston 2016;Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith 2012), teachers (Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith 2012) or the students themselves (Swain, Pendergast, and Cumming 2018;Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith 2012). In common with other countries where national, high-stakes testing programmes have been implemented, much of the research literature about NAPLAN reports on concerns about aspects of validity, curricular consequences and the perceptions of students and teachers on their experiences.…”

Recontextualising NAPLAN: A functional analysis of evaluations in media texts

“…It becomes a single favoured source of data in deciding students' success or failure in meeting education standards in Australia. However, as NAPLAN is used as a single source of data, it may not 'objectively' measure the Copyright © 2018, IJAL, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468 actual achievement of students in primary and secondary levels of education (Johnston, 2017).…”

“…In relation to both teachers' and students' psychological dimensions, NAPLAN is clearly problematic. For students, NAPLAN is a heavy burden, leading to an uncomfortable feeling as their learning over years will be judged solely based on the results of their NAPLAN test (Johnston, 2017). For teachers, preparing students to only face this test will result in a negative consequence to classroom environment and students' engagement (Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013).…”