Resource One

Reference: Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for
Assessment in New Zealand: Developing students assessment capabilities. Retrieved from
http://asssessment.tki.org.nz/Research-and-readings
Type of piece: Advice Paper to New Zealand Ministry of Education
Key words: Assessment Student-centred Learning Student-centred Assessment Self-Assessment
Self-Reflexive Assessment Capable Teachers National Assessment Strategy
Summary
The papers purpose was to guide and inform the Ministry of Education in its design of new
strategies, plans and policies for assessment (during the course of its Assessment Strategy Review
Project, which commenced in 2006 and was intended to culminate in a revised National Assessment
Strategy for implementation in 2009). While that National Strategy has not yet come to pass, the
paper has been used to substantially support the present Ministry of Education Position Paper on
Assessment (2011). I selected the Advice Paper for review over the Position Paper because it is
significantly more detailed, and therefore provides a better opportunity to investigate and critique
future policy directions for assessment.
On the basis of a review of the prominent international literature on the subject, the paper advocates
for future policy directions, assessment frameworks and teaching strategies that support all students
develop the capacity to engage in self-assessment of their learning (rather than relying on extrinsic
assessment by their instructors). The benefits, they contend, of the ability to self-assess are multiple:
students that have well-developed self-assessment capacities are more able to utilise assessment
opportunities to affirm or further their learning.
In service to this vision, the paper sets out those requirements it considers crucial to a future context
where students can comfortably and effectively self-assess their own learning. Specifically, it
contends that students should be taught to:

Set and clarify challenging learning goals;

Access, interpret and use evidence of their own assessment capabilities to modify their

learning and assessment strategies;

Engage in metacognitive processes regarding their learning and performance in assessment;
Understand how their emotional responses support or hinder their learning and assessment

performance;
Understand how their social and cultural context can be used to support their engagement in
assessment.

To meet these aspirations, the authors postulate, students must be taught by assessment-capable
teachers, who:

Are aware of the effects of assessment on learners;

Know how assessment can assist students to learn and how to check whether it has done so;
Do not make assumptions regarding the impact of students socio-cultural location on their
assessment needs, but provide for these impacts wherever possible, and support students with
strategies to construct meaning from their assessments (as they apply to their socio-cultural

location);
Utilise student data to set future learning directions and appropriate assessment approaches

that will best help their students;

Provide other partners in learning (such as parents) with meaningful data which supports their
playing an informed role in supporting learners.
Relationship to course

In advocating for policies, systems, and strategies for assessment that are student-centred and develop
students self-sufficiency as learners (as a means to lifting student motivation and academic
achievement), the paper echoes the student-centred, and increasingly student-autonomous, philosophy
behind a number of teaching strategies promoted throughout the course as effective means to promote
student engagement, interest and effort in learning, such as:

The teacher taking on the role of a facilitator in students independent inquiry, rather than an

authoritarian transmitter and assessor of knowledge role (ODwyer, 2006); and

The teachers modelling and explicit teaching of self-regulatory and metacognitive strategies,
which enables students to regulate their own learning and study approaches (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2003, p. 127).

In this sense, the paper promulgates a harmonious and congruent view of learning and assessment, in
which they are unified limbs of the same process and support similar outcomes student selfsufficiency as learners and (academic or vocational) performers.
The fact that this kind of congruence is presented as novel and aspirational a potential direction in
this paper, rather than a present reality is somewhat alarming. My assumption across the course
as we investigated student-centred approaches to learning was that this approach would, naturally,
bleed into assessment practices. The fact that at least, as the authors consider it the present
educational model advocates clueing students into how they learn, but not how they succeed in
demonstrating that learning, is nonsensical akin to giving students tools without instructions. Not
only does such a disjunct suppress achievement in the school context (in the sense that students are
deprived of a crucial skill necessary to success), but it leaves students with a lacuna of knowledge
upon their exit from schooling. The capacity to self-regulate ones performance behaviours is crucial

to success in either a tertiary or employment context (Ringleb & Ancona, 2014). Since schools are
often conceived of as a preparatory agency for tertiary or workplace success (Harber, 2014, p. 124), it
seems obvious that the promotion of student self-sufficiency is a necessary and pertinent goal.
Relationship to practice
The obvious implication for practice is that teachers ought to strive to implement the
recommendations made by the paper insofar as the current assessment framework allows (becoming
assessment-capable, as described above). Certainly, the approach is theoretically sound. Across the
literature the support for student-centred approaches is predominant teaching practices oriented
towards the development of student self-sufficiency have been shown to support the positive
development of student-teacher relationships (Bulach, 1993), heighten student motivation levels
(Fraser & Treagust, 1986), and improve student study strategies (Huber & Hutchings, 2005), all of
which serve to heighten student achievement (Arvidson & Huston, 2008, p. 13).
However, it ought to be noted that the practical implementation of a student-centred approach to
assessment may be difficult international efforts to do so have indicated that its path to
implementation is not a smooth one.
First, teachers ought to expect to encounter student resistance to student-centred approaches, either
explicitly, or in a more subtle way. Wood (1998), for instance, has documented students tracking
through the five stages of grief in response to the implementation of student-centred practices (p.
269). Belenky et al. (1997), similarly, have noted that many students, upon encountering studentcentred approaches will only give superficial expressions of participation (but will ultimately fail to
work at developing the self-sufficiency required to succeed in such contexts) (p. 39). Teachers then, in
implementing such strategies, must be eagle-eyed to detect, and then resolve, this kind of hostility
(lest they wish to diminish student outcomes). In some circumstances, this hostility can be reversed
Felder & Brent (1996) note that explanations of the real-world importance of self-sufficiency can
turn around some students attitudes (p. 46). However, no approach can be applied universally in
some circumstances, teachers may have to concede that to ensure the best outcomes they may
have to resort back to more traditional approaches (Felder & Brent, 1996, p. 47).
Secondly, teachers must be prepared in implementing student-centred approaches to commit fully
to the strategy. Various authors note that the significant devolution of control required by such
strategies is a frightening process (Earl, 2003), and teachers may be reluctant to commit fully to such
an ideological change. However, studies show that student-centred approaches are ineffective when
insincere (Dixon, 2008). As such, the obligation on teachers is an emotional and intellectual one
they are required to develop true conviction and dedication to the strategy in order to give it proper
effect.

Resource Two
Reference: Meyer, L., McClure, J., Walley, F., Weir, K., & McKenzie, L. (2009). Secondary student
motivation orientations and standards-based achievement outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79, 273-293.
Type of piece: Academic Journal Article Empirical Study
Key words: Standards-based assessment Student motivation Student achievement outcomes
NCEA
Summary
The authors stated purpose for the article is to assess the correlation (and potentially causative
relationship) between students self-reported motivation orientations and their academic achievement
outcomes in a SBA context. Specifically, the authors objectives were twofold: first, to clarify the
common strands of motivation orientation expressed and embodied by students in an SBA context;
and secondly, to understand how these specific motivation orientations impacted students assessment
performances. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement framework (NCEA) was used as
the representative SBA in carrying out the research.
The studys findings were based on a sample of 3,569 Year 11-13 students NCEA records and selfreported surveys of attitudes towards assessment. Students were selected for participation to inform a
nationally representative sample (representing diversity in school location, decile level, type (public
or private) and size).
The authors found that student motivation orientations towards NCEA assessment divided into two
key strands: first, doing just enough, and secondly, doing my best. Students that exemplified the
latter orientation typically achieved more credits and higher grades than their peers that manifested
the former. The student groups most likely to embody the doing my best orientation were: girls,
high- and mid-decile students, Asian and European students. Maori, Pasifika and low-decile students
were more likely to manifest a doing just enough orientation.
Students motivation orientations were found to be informed by several factors their personal
interest in the subject for assessment, their perceived utility in the subject (as a means to obtaining a
tertiary or career goal), and their desire for work avoidance (to complete a task successfully as a
means to avoiding further work in future). Students that spoke of positive interest and utility in the
subject for assessment were more likely to express a doing my best attitude. Students that expressed
a work avoidance preference in the subject for assessment were more likely to express a doing just
enough attitude.

On the basis of these findings, the authors concluded that students motivational orientations towards
assessment are heavily influenced by their personally meaningful conceptual framework. As such,
the authors concluded by recommending that in order to encourage doing my best motivation
orientations teachers and schools should work to provide students with assessment opportunities
which resonate with their individualised interest and utility calculus for each assessment subject.
NCEA, they postulate, is amenable to this kind of tailoring since its assessment opportunities are
comprised of multiple criterion-referenced achievement tasks, it is possible for students to self-select
standards which best maximise their motivation orientation (and thus, promote higher achievement).
Relationship to course
In confirming a correlative relationship between students interest and perceived utility in a subject,
their motivational orientation towards its assessment, and their levels of academic achievement, this
paper acts as an empirical basis upon which to justify those recommendations in the New Zealand
Curriculum (2007, p. 9), the Education Review Office (2012, p. 7), and made by various New Zealand
academics (Brough, 2008; Bishop, 1998; Mahuika et al., 2011), which support the tailoring of
curriculum and pedagogical approaches to respond to students interests, values and priorities (as they
are informed by their unique socio-cultural location and generic preferences). In this sense, it sits
comfortably with practices and strategies recommended across the course, but particularly in
EDCURSEC701 for maximising student engagement across teaching, learning and assessment,
which support the utilisation of student interest as an engaging tactic, such as:

Differentiating assessment opportunities based on interest (for instance, offering English

students the chance to complete a project orally, musically, dramatically or in written form)

(Stradling & Saunders, 1993, p. 129; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010); and
Facilitating a student-centred learning and assessment environment, where students are
permitted and encouraged to maximise their interest in a subject and its assessment by
bringing their own socio-cultural positioning to bear in the way they engage in learning and
assessment (Absolum et al., 2009).

Further, this article squares with other empirical studies regarding the utility of using interest in a
subject to lift student performance in assessment opportunities. Differentiated assessment
opportunities for interest, for instance, has been shown to stimulate student enthusiasm for learning
(Johnsen, 2003) and lift the achievement of all students (McQuarrie, McRae, & Stack-Cutler, 2008;
Tieso, 2005).
In the above senses, the article sat comfortably within the dominant ideas of student motivation
covered in the course. However, there was one unexpected revelation. The article demonstrated that
students have a tendency to view their education mechanistically as a means to promoting
workforce or tertiary readiness. In the authors findings, students perception of utility was almost as

strong a motivating factor as interest. Certainly, while the course has not represented that students are
unmotivated by utility (for instance, we have encountered the idea that giving real world relevance
to knowledge in classrooms enhances its interest to students (Curtis, 2001)). However, key
documentation generally subjugates utility to learning-for-learnings-sake principles the Curriculum
certainly emphasises a broad-order, academic education (see Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 8). In
relation to both assessment and learning, this revelation could indicate the need for (or at least, to
debate) a shift in thinking to a valuation and investigation into broadening pathway-based learning
and assessment opportunities, and to a more technical approach to education than has hitherto been
investigated.
Relationship to practice
In spite of the theoretical pedigree of the authors study, the practical implementation of their
recommendation that assessment opportunities provided to students ought to be tailored to their
framework of personal meaning in each individual instance may raise problems in practice. Its
implementation should, at the very least, be cautious.
First, there is a risk that to devolve total, or significant, responsibility to students to select their own
assessment opportunities (in line with their personal framework of interest) could create too great a
space for students to avoid assessment of certain skill or knowledge areas entirely. Meyer et al.
(2006), for instance, note students have a general tendency to avoid assessment options in which they
expect to do poorly, which they perceive as challenging, or which are surplus to NCEA credit
requirements (p. 68). The risk is, students may, in so doing, carve out the opportunity to experience
some forced discomfort in assessment a crucial experience which assists in developing resilience
and persistence skills (crucial for success in employment and/or later study) (Chase, 2011, p. 1) and
provides a massive boost to self-efficacy (since gains are highest when students feel they have had to
work hard against disinterest or difficulty to achieve a certain outcome (Hattie, 2014, p. 306). In
this sense, while students might be motivated, they would not be acting in their best interests this is
an untenable outcome.
Secondly, to implement the authors model as is (in order to lift motivation, and thereby,
achievement) would not necessarily guarantee success it is overly-simplistic. The literature shows
that do my best orientations are divisible into two sub-motivations mastery orientation (the
desire to succeed for the sake of learning) and ego orientation (the desire to succeed to impress or
exceed others) (Ames, 1992). A mastery orientation is more effective than an ego orientation at
fostering success, since students with a mastery orientation are more likely to seek out challenging
opportunities and persevere until they are mastered than their ego-driven counterparts (Maehr, 1983).
As such, in practice, teachers ought not to stop short at maximising interest (lest they wish to do a
disservice to their students) in addition, they should work to model a mastery motivational

orientation in their students (for instance, by celebrating moments of academic achievement using
mastery, rather than personally, oriented language (Hattie, 2014, p. 30).

Resource Three
Reference: Rawlins, P., Brandon, J., Chapman, J., Leach, L., Neutze, G., Scott, A., & Zepke, N.
(2005). Standards-Based Assessment in Senior Secondary School: A Review of the Literature. New
Zealand Journal of Teachers Work, 2(2), 107-115.
Type of piece: Journal Article Literature Review
Key words: NCEA Standards-Based Assessment International Contexts Achievement Standards
Assessment Criteria Atomisation of Knowledge
Summary
The articles pre-eminent purpose is to provide a summary of the literature in support and critique
of SBA, as it has been implemented in a variety of international contexts. Published one year after the
complete implementation of NCEA, it was intended to alert both practitioners and policy-makers to
the difficulties that might arise in the ongoing development of the SBA NCEA framework.
The authors are careful to recognise the advantages of SBA as a system of assessment. They note, for
instance, that the increased transparency of the assessment process under SBA (emerging from the use
of specified assessment criteria) promotes student achievement by encouraging students to engage in
metacognitive review of their own work. Further, the removal of traditional barriers and quotas to
achievement (such as the bell curve) democratises learning, and relieves competition and anxiety
amongst students, which serves to promote motivation (and thereby, achievement).
However, the authors more prominent opinion of SBA is risks developing into an assessment
framework which problematizes desirable student learning outcomes.
They contend that SBA is prone to atomising learning it divides curriculum material into separated
blocks that are assessable in isolation and insert-able or extractable from the course at will. In so
doing, SBA stultifies opportunities for students go gain (and be assessed) on broad-order and
relational knowledge and skills it subjugates high-level thinking to technical, compartmentalised
skills. SBA then exacerbates this deprivation of broad-order thinking opportunities by encouraging
teaching to test assessment criteria are often so detailed and extensive that alignment between
standards and teaching essentially obliges teachers to teach according to the specified criteria. This
disincentivises teachers and students from working to create connections across topics.

This deprivation of high-level thinking opportunities, the authors conclude, is detrimental to student
learning outcomes in the long-term, since the ability to think critically and relationally across a
number of contexts is a determinant of success in tertiary and workplace contexts.
Relationship to course
The articles esteem of broad-order, high-level, academic thinking (over compartmentalised, technical
thinking) brings to mind a debate which arose in the course of EDPROF737 and the discussion of
vocational pathways in NCEA: whether an academic model of educations ought to be favoured over
a vocational model, and whether it is appropriate that teachers project this hierarchy of knowledge
and skill onto students, by postulating broad-order thinking as their key educational objective.
Assuming, for the sake of this section, that the authors are right to contend SBAs (and therefore,
NCEA) risk prioritising a technical kind of knowledge, the question is: is this prioritisation to the
detriment of learners (and therefore, should it be rebelled against)?
On one hand, the argument goes, broad-order thinking should be an obvious curricular goal since its
realisation promotes positive student academic outcomes: students that manifest a capability in such
thinking typically experience high levels of (secondary and tertiary) achievement (Pintrich &
Schruaben, 1992; Miller et al., 1996), and are more likely to find employment and obtain high socioeconomic status in the long term (Archumblaut et al., 2012, p. 284).
However, on the other hand, it might be argued that the denigration of technical,
compartmentalised assessment which de-prioritises academic-style thinking is an elitist position,
which falsely promotes the view that higher (rather than different) intelligence is required to engage in
academic-style thinking (Coogan, 1995, p. 60). Sleeter & Grant (2011) argue that a school model
which perpetuates this hierarchy socialises students into complicity with a narrative which legitimates
the cultural, social and economic dominance of the middle-classes (who are more likely than their
lower-class counterparts to exemplify a preference for broad-order thinking models). In the shortterm, this threatens the aspirations of the New Zealand Curriculum, which aspires that students will
achieve personal excellence (instead, compelling students to seek excellence within a narrow
framework defined externally to themselves) and learn to value all abilities and talents (since it
compels them to denigrate talents and abilities which do not exemplify academic skill) (Ministry of
Education, 2007, p. 8). In the long-term, such hierarchical thinking threatens the aims of critical
pedagogy that infuses the Curriculum in justifying class inequalities by establishing a hierarch of
knowledge, such a narrative erodes the prospect of students eventual adult democratic demand for the
kind of society in which we aspire to live in which class inequalities are, at the very least,
substantially reduced (Nygreen, 2011, p. 61).

Relationship to practice
While this tension might seem theoretical only, it is actually likely to manifest in the practical context
of the classroom. Jones (1991) identified that students originating from low socio-economic
backgrounds, for instance, were liable to prefer technical approaches to study and assessment over
academic models to the extent where they would rebel against the provision of the latter. Assuming
NCEA is a framework which exemplifies the authors concerns (i.e. prioritises technical assessment
styles over broad-order thinking), the question for a teacher will be whether or not it is appropriate to
paternalistically steer students towards broad-order thinking opportunities and assessment, in order to
negate this deprivation.
On one hand, the prospect of promoting student achievement in the long-term by encouraging broadorder thinking makes this an attractive option. On the other, some commentators note that this might
be an elitist action Lee (1987), for instance, contended that to encourage children of low socioeconomic status to aspire to middle-class academic aspirations does more harm than good
socialising students out of their class roots to a more academic location (than perhaps their parents
or community) leaves them in an isolated position where they can never feel comfortable or truly
belong. This raises the prospect of a very real possibility that teachers might be called upon in the
classroom to make significant, and potentially very damaging, value judgments an intimidating
prospect.
Ultimately, however, I believe we can circumvent this difficulty by rebelling against the authors
presumption that SBAs which technicise and atomise assessment preclude the development of broadorder knowledge and high-order thinking skills. Hawk and Hill (2000), for instance, found that a
chunked approach to learning and assessment under SBA systems was effective in helping students
to build bridges in their learning, and develop higher-order thinking skills. Even assuming then, that
NCEA exemplifies these failings of SBAs1, teachers need not be required to rebel in practice, SBAs
can provide for positive student outcomes.

Resource Four
Reference: Mahuika, R., Berryman, M., & Bishop, R. (2011). Issues of culture and assessment in
New Zealand education pertaining to Mori students. Assessment Matters, 3, 183-198.
Type of piece: Journal Article Resource for Teachers NZCER Publication Literature Review

1 It is worthy of note that there is literature which suggests, in fact, that it does
not.

Key words: Assessment Mori Students Mori Underachievement Mori Assessment Cultural
Difference Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Culturally Responsive Assessment Formative
Assessment Interview Assessment
Summary
The authors purpose, across the article, is to present evidence for and persuasively argue their
contention that the present manner and style of assessment opportunities provided to students in New
Zealand secondary schools ought to be amended in order to ameliorate achievement outcomes of
Mori students, which are systemically and significantly lesser than their non-Mori counterparts
(Ministry of Education, 2006, pp. 11 and 17).
The authors conceive of assessment as an appropriate site of focus, in seeking to lift Mori
educational attainment, because:

Effective teachers utilise data from assessment to clarify their students ongoing learning
needs and interests (in order to tailor individualised, responsive and effective learning
programmes). As such, in order that Mori students are able to provide their teachers with
accurate data, barriers to their full and effective participation must be removed so that they

can participate to the best of their ability;

Assessment is the point at which achievement disparities are codified. It is therefore the most
direct site at which any intervention can occur.

Upon the basis of a literature review, the authors conclude that present assessment opportunities in
secondary schools alienate, disenchant or exclude Mori students from effectively participating in the
assessment process. They contend that assessment practices in their present form respond to and
enact Pkeh-centric norms, values and interest, and fail to take account of or enact Mori ways of
knowing and being.2 This is significant for the success of Mori students, because symmetry between
school and home environments is a key predictor of academic success. Thus, under the present
framework of assessment, Mori are unduly disadvantaged.
As such, the authors contend that the manner and content of assessment opportunities must be
amended to better provide for the needs of Mori students. 3 While the authors note that Mori
students needs are not wholly distinct from those of their non- Mori counterparts, there will be some
differences in their assessment requirements. The extent or range of these differences and needs is not
2 The authors do not specifically identify which assessment practices are of specific concern, or the
particular Pkeh-centric norms they consider to be promulgated as normative and universal across
such practices.
3 The authors consider that all Mori are disadvantaged by the present state of assessment regardless of their connection to whakapapa and ancient traditions.

particularised, but the authors conclude by suggesting two potential approaches to assessment which
might better suit the needs of Mori learners than present opportunities:

The more frequent use of formative assessment practices;

The provision of opportunities for oral assessment, in addition or as an alternative to written
assessment.
Relationship to course

The authors critique of the Pkeh-centric assessment model despite their lack of particularity is a
logical extension of the critiques applied to the Pkeh-centric manifestations of curriculum and
pedagogy raised in EDPROF738. The validity of this concern has been attested to across the literature
with commentators recognising:

That, in spite of curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 9) and policy directives

(Ministry of Education, 2011, p. 4) otherwise, many teachers continue to improperly, or fail
to, implement effective culturally-responsive practices with their students (Hogg, 2009, p. 91;

Darling-Hammond, 2002, pp. 201-216; Sheeehan, 2011, p. 157);

A lack of cultural responsiveness in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment is likely to inhibit
the achievement of cultural minority students student engagement is crucial to academic
success, and students cannot engage if they are marginalised in their educational context
(Hanly, 2007, pp. 150-170; Greenwood and Te Aka, 2009).

Certainly, the authors are right to point to assessment as a particular site of concern in this regard, but
not only because it is the site at which inequalities are officially produced. A failure to provide
responsive assessment can result in broader resonations across society in the long-term.
Students prioritise knowledge and skills according to what is assessed in other words, what is
symbolically declared officially legitimate by the teacher, school or organisational body that governs
assessment (Mahuika et al., 2011, p. 184). In this sense, they are socialised to perceive knowledge
and skills in a hierarchy which influences the values they will take with them in society (Tomlinson
& Imbeau, 2010, p. 27; Arons, 1976, p. 98; Dreben, 1968, p. 13). Where assessment only validates the
knowledge and skills of one dominant cultural group, students are socialised to view the knowledge
and skills of other cultural minority groups as less valuable. In instances of cross-cultural dialogue in
the classroom, therefore, they are therefore less likely to engage fully and obtain its benefits to
develop the ability to hear and empathise with others [unlike themselves], develop a social
imagination that allows identification with the other (Jones, 1999, p. 303). In the long-term, the
prospect of this deprivation is significant such modes of understanding are basic to democracy and
effective multicultural functioning (Jones, 1999, p. 304).
Relationship to practice

However, while it is imperative that culturally-responsive assessment opportunities are provided, the
prospect of their practical implementation is far more daunting. Certainly, it is possible to imagine
how such opportunities might look: Bevan-Brown (2005), for instance, imagines that culturallyresponsive assessment for Mori students might entail communal or group assessment opportunities,
since such approaches recognise the importance of collective responsibility to Mori (p. 155).
However, in considering, designing and implementing such opportunities, teachers must be cautious
not to undermine the very aims they are trying to promote uncareful implementation of culturallyresponsive approaches is liable to do more harm than good.
For instance, teachers must be cautious in designing Mori assessment opportunities not to
symbolically colonise or homogenise aspects of Moridom. Durie (1983), for instance, notes that
Mori ways of being, values and knowledges are not fractured they are part of a holistic contextual
system (p. 22). As such, any attempt to divorce Mori practices or values from their context, crudely
manufacturing traditional practices into assessment opportunities might be taken by students as
symbolic violence to Mori culture. In such circumstances, well-intentioned opportunities might
render the classroom an unsafe environment for the Mori learner maligning, rather than bringing
that learner into full and effective participation.
Similarly, teachers ought to be aware of compelling or pressuring Mori students to bring their
cultural capital to assessment opportunities. Bhabba (1994), for instance, has argued that models of
dialogic pedagogy might be perceived as a form of colonial surveillance (p. 192). Jones (1999), too,
notes that access to some Mori knowledge may not easily be granted, if at all (p. 311). To require its
presentation for the sake of analysis, then, risks alienating students by forcing their culture to be
opened up in ways with which they feel discomfort.

Bibliography

Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for assessment in
New Zealand (DANZ): Developing students assessment capabilities. Wellington: Ministry of
Education.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C.
Robers (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and exercise (pp. 123-148). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M. & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher Beliefs as Predictors of Adolescents
Cognitive Engagement and Achievement in Mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research,
105(5), 319-328. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2011.629694.
Arons, S. (1976). The Separation of School and State: Pierce Reconsidered. Harvard Educational
Review, 46, 76-104.
Arvidson, P. S., & Huston, T. A. (2008). Transparent Teaching. Currents in Teaching and Learning,
1(1), 4-16.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Womens ways of knowing.
New York: Basic Books.
Bevan-Brown, J. (2005). Providing a culturally responsive environment for gifted Mori learners.
International Education Journal, 6(2), 150-155.
Bhabba, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Bishop, R. (1998). Student-Centred Learning : Educational Practice that Addresses Cultural
Diversity. Paper Presented at Keynote Address Distance Educational Association of New Zealand,
Rotorua.
Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture Counts: Changing Power Relationships in Education.
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Brophy, J. (2006). Observational research on generic aspects of classroom teaching. In P. A.
Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp.755-780). Mahwah: NJ,
Erlbaum.
Brough, C. (2008). Student-centred curriculum integration and the New Zealand Curriculum. Set, 2,
16-19.
Bulach, C. (1993). A measure of openness and trust. People and Education, 1, 382-392.
Chase, C. (2011). Motivating Persistence After Failure. PhD Thesis. University of Stanford, USA.
Coogan, P. (1995). Standards-based Assessment: Lessons for New Zealand from the United Kingdom.
New Zealand: Associateship Institute of Education.
Curtis, D. (2001). Project-Based Learning: Real-World Issues Motivate Students. Edutopia. Retrieved
from www.edutopoia.org/project-based-learning-student-motivation.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Educating a profession for equitable practice. In L. Darling Hammond,
J. French & S.P. Garcia-Lopez (Eds.), Learning to Teach for Social Justice (pp. 201-216). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Dreeben, R. (1968). On What Is Learned In Schools. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Durie, M. (1983, July). Paper Presented to Royal Society, Manawatu, New Zealand.
Educational Review Office. (2012). Evaluation at a Glance: Priority Learners in New Zealand
Schools. Wellington: Author.

Felder, R., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centred Instruction. College
Teaching, 44, 43-47.
Flockton, L. (2012). Commentary: Directions for Assessment in New Zealand. Assessment Matters, 4,
129-149.
Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom
psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37-57.
Greenwood, J., & Te Aka, L.H, (2009). Hei tauira. Wellington: Ako Aoteaoroa, Ministry of Education
and University of Canterbury.
Hanly, Tamsin. (2007). Preparing students for a bicultural partnership: Pkeha primary teachers and
histories of Aotearoa. Masters thesis. University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Harber, C. (2014). Education and International Development: Theory, Practice and Issues. Oxford:
Symposium Books.
Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on Student Learning. Paper Presented at the University of Auckland, New
Zealand.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Routledge:
Abingdon, Oxon.
Hemara, W. (1999). Assessment Maori attitudes to assessment. Paper presented at the Examining
Assessment Conference, Wellington.
Hawk, K., & Hill, J. (2000). Making a difference in the classroom: effective teaching practice in low
decile, multicultural schools. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Hockings, C. (2003). Swimming Against the Tide. PhD Thesis. University of Birmingham, England.
Hogg, Linda. (2009). Transcending Monocultural Life Experiences for Pkeha Trainee Teachers. New
Zealand Annual Review of Education, 18, 89-106.
Honkimaki, S., Tynjala, P. & Valkonen, S. (2004). University students study orientations, learning
experiences and study success in innovative courses. Studies in Higher Education, 29(4).431-449.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Washington DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Johnsen, S. (2003). Adapting instruction with heterogenous groups. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 5- 6.
Jones, A. (1991). At School Ive Got A Chance. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Jones, A. (1999). The Limits of Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Pedagogy, Desire and Absolution in the
Classroom. Educational Theory, 39(3), 299-316.
Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doing well on science. Why Johnny no longer excels, and why Sarah never
did. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom
(pp. 179-210. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Mahuika, R., Berryman, M., & Bishop, R. (2011). Issues of culture and assessment in New Zealand
education pertaining to Maori students. Assessment Matters, 3, 183-198.

MacFarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T. & Bateman, S. (2007) Creating Culturally Safe Schools for
Mori Students. The Australasian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36, 65-76.
McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., & Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated instruction provincial research
review. Edmonton: Alberta Initiative for School Improvement.
Meyer, L., McClure, J., Walley, F., Weir, K., & McKenzie, L. (2006). Final Report: The Impact of
NCEA on Student Motivation. Ministry of Education: Wellington.
Meyer, L., McClure, J., Walley, F., Weir, K., & McKenzie, L. (2009). Secondary student motivation
orientations and standards-based achievement outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
79, 273-293.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B, & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in
Academic Work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others and perceived
ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.
Ministry of Education. (2006). Educate: Ministry of Education Statement of Intent 2006-2011.
Wellington: Author.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2010). Assessment for Learning. New Zealand Curriculum Online.
Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/National-Standards/Key-information/Factsheets/Assessment-for-learning
Ministry of Education. (2011). Ministry of Education Position Paper: Assessment (Schooling Sector)
2011. Wellington: Author.
Ministry of Education. (2012). Effective Teaching is Culturally Responsive. New Zealand Curriculum
Guides: Senior Secondary. Retrieved from seniorsecondary.tki.org.nz/Science/Pedagogy/Culturallyresponsive.
Nygreen, K. (2011). The Central Paradox of Critical Pedagogy. In L. Scherff & K. Spector (Eds.),
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Clashes and Confrontations (pp. 61-88). United Kingdom: Rowman
& Littlefield Education.
ODwyer, S. (2006). The English Teacher as Facilitator and Authority. TESL-EJ, 9(4), 1-15.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schruaben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs and their cognitive
engagement in classroom tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the
Classroom: Causes and Consequences (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ringlieb, A. H., & Ancona, C. (2014). Fundamental Importance of Self-Regulation. Association for
Talent Development. Retrieved from www.td.org/Publications/Blogs/Science-of-LearningBlog/2014/09/Fundamental-Importance-Of-Self-Regulation
Sheehan, Mark & Taylor, Rowena. (2011). The Place of History in the New Zealand Curriculum.
Journal of Teachers Work, 8(2), 156-167.
Slee, J. (2010). A Systemic Approach to Culturally Responsive Assessment Practices and Evaluation.
Higher Education Quarterly, 64: 246260. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00464.x
Stradling, B., & Saunders, L. (1993). Differentiation in practice: Responding to the needs of all
pupils. Educational Research, 35, 127137.
Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 6089.

Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.