Search

In 1991 the New Zealand Fire Service planned a primary school fire-safety education program for children from new entrants to form 2. The program introduces a new module to the children each year of their primary education. This study was undertaken in an attempt to measure the effectiveness of the program. A sample of 1,089 children completed questionnaires and a smaller sample of 100 pupils demonstrated their knowledge of fire-safety procedures, including stop, drop, and roll; crawl low in smoke; and phoning 111 (the emergency number). The 1995 results were compared with those gathered in 1992, prior to the introduction of the Fire Service's programs. It was assumed that any improvements in children's results could be attributed in large measure to the introduction of the programs, although it was also recognized that other factors could have intervened. The results of the 1992 questionnaire indicated that standard 2 children already had a high knowledge of fire-safety procedures prior to the introduction of the new fire-safety programs. Not much improvement was recorded in the 1995 data, though significantly more children indicated they would call the Fire Service first rather than a parent when they saw a fire, and significantly fewer children in 1995 knew the most appropriate procedure if they were in a room full of smoke. In the fire safety skills demonstrations, while more children showed a mastery of skills, results showed that children either knew exactly what to do or had no idea of the appropriate response. The findings of the study indicated that although standard 2 children in 1995 have a heightened awareness of fire-safety, there is still room for improvement and need for many more schools to participate in the program. The 1995 questionnaire is included in the appendix. (ND)

This study investigated current classroom assessment practices by surveying teachers in New Zealand at years 5, 7, and 9 on the assessments they use in the areas of English and mathematics, the purposes of the assessment, and the assessments that provide the most useful information. A total of 676 questionnaires were returned from 311 full primary, contributing, intermediate, composite, and secondary schools (response rate of 65%). More than half the respondents (69%) were female, and 56% had been teaching more than 10 years. In both English and mathematics the use of teacher or school developed tools and strategies was greater than the use of externally developed tools. The only externally developed tools to have high rates of use across all years were the Progressive Achievement Tests and Competition tests. In both English and mathematics, teachers in decile 1-3 schools used Competition tests significantly less. In both subject areas, assessment was used most frequently for purposes within the classroom. Less use of assessment was made for purposes outside the classroom, but when it was used, it came more often from externally developed tools. The greatest number of tools and strategies that were rated as "useful" or "very useful" by more than 50% were for teaching and learning and monitoring progress. Teachers also indicated that they received useful feedback about assessment results from a range of sources, including students, parents, other teachers, and administrators. Teacher reported that they consulted widely on issues of assessment, with 51% reporting that they used at least one type of external professional development. Most teacher reported that there was a difference in the amount of assessment they did in the two subject areas, and most reported that they did more assessment than they did 3 years ago. Only about half reported the amount as being about right, however. Six appendixes contain questionnaire responses and materials used in the study. (Contains 66 tables and 37 references.) (SLD)