The evidence for this learner does not meet the standard required for Achieved.

This portfolio comprises three interactions (two small group discussions and a one-to-one exchange with a classmate) which have occurred naturally from real contexts (as part of normal English class activities), meeting the requirements of explanatory notes (ENs) 2 and 4. The evidence has been generated over a marginally acceptable period of time (10 September – 13 October) – a longer period between occasions would be more in keeping with the intention of EN 3 (refer clarifications that apply to all Literacy and Numeracy unit standards).

Three observation sheets have been presented as evidence.  (Alternatively, valid evidence could also be provided through audio-visual digital recordings of the interactions, with the learner who is being assessed identified.)  Please note that this portfolio contains the 2011 version of observation sheets.  These have been updated and a new version is now available on the NZQA website.  Evidence provided on observation sheets can only be verified if it includes actual examples of the learner’s behaviour and/or words which show what the observer/assessor has based their decision(s) on - brief direct quotes or summarised utterances and descriptions of actions are required. The observation sheets must also be signed off by the observer to confirm that the observed learner performance is authentic. 

The purpose of the interaction is recorded and the participants appropriately identified on each observation sheet in this portfolio.

The evidence for this learner does not meet the minimum standard required for Achieved as it does not show the learner can participate in interactions appropriately in terms of the other participants (evidence requirement – ER – 1.2). The learner’s behaviour, taken as a whole across the three activities, and across different sized groups, has produced observer commentary that supports the assessor decision of Not Achieved [note 1].  Refer to clarifications of this standard.

The learner has shown she can participate in interactions, as is required by ER 1.1 (agreeing, asking questions).  However, for ER 1.2, the assessor must be satisfied that this learner can demonstrate appropriate behaviour, language and tone on other similar occasions (EN 3), and the evidence presented in this portfolio does not give this assurance. More occasions/activities may do so.

Interaction one

The observation sheet supplies evidence that the learner met neither ER 1.1 in its entirety, or ER 1.2. The observer has provided commentary on what the learner said and did that met some aspects of ER 1.1, such as contributing ideas and non-verbal behaviour [note 2].   However, the comments do not support the Yes decision that the learner could sustain dialogue [note 3] (for example, interruptions, talking over the top of her classmate and limited feedback via eye contact). For ER 1.2, the comments recorded provide justification for the No decisions (inappropriate behaviour and tone) [note 4].

Interaction two

The observation sheet gives adequate descriptions of what was said or done to support decisions for ER 1.1 for non-verbal behaviour [note 5] and giving feedback [note 6].  Adequate descriptions of learner performance are not given for the other aspects of ER 1.1 asserted as observed (ticked) [note 7], except perhaps acknowledging contributions – “builds on comments” – however this aspect has not been indicated [note 8].  (However, note that over the three interactions, only two instances of contributing ideas and one example of sustaining dialogue are required as minimum evidence to support an assessor’s decision.)  Comments for ER 1.2 [note 9] do not support the Yes decision – the behaviour noted of “dominating the discussion” is not appropriate for interactive participation in spoken exchanges.

Interaction three

The commentary supplied on the observation sheet for interaction three does not sufficiently or directly relate to the criteria, so the evidence for the decisions for this occasion cannot be verified.  The observation sheet gives evidence of meeting the requirements of ER 1.1 for non-verbal behaviour [note 10], but the decisions for contributing ideas [note 11][note 12] are either not supported by a related comment, or the comment contradicts the meeting of the requirement.  For example, directing others is not an appropriate means of encouraging discussion [note 13].  The justification given in the observation sheet for ER 1.2 is insufficient [note 14] – the learner’s behaviour is not commented on, and the recorded comment is not relevant to appropriateness of language, tone and behaviour in terms of the other participants.