Following on from my post back in May 'Do Exams Pass Under CfE?', I have given the issues of assessment and certification some further consideration, which I discussed in my presentation at this year's Teachmeet SLF 'Breakout' event held at CitizenM, Glasgow back in September. This post is an attempt to summarise and explain the issues which cause me, and many other people in education, huge concern and why I believe assessment must be reformed.
As I outlined in 'Do Exams Pass Under CfE?', the system of assessment and certification has remained largely unchanged after the significant changes brought to the Scottish education system by Curriculum for Excellence. Course content may have been reworked in most subjects, with many now including an extended research and presentation task (assignment) which contributes a proportion of the final exam score, but the framework of unit tests and final exam remains at the heart of how students are assessed.
In many ways what has been put into place for the new CfE National 3-5, Higher and Advanced Higher courses, with the unit tests becoming more high-stakes than the NABs they replace - candidates receive only two opportunities to 'pass' these tests unless under 'exceptional circumstances', but cannot receive a grade for the final exam unless all course units have been passed.
In my own subject the old NAB unit assessments, where pupils had to achieve a score of 60% to pass, have been replaced by assessment which are broken down into two main parts -
- 2.1 Knowledge & Understanding (KU) - which is broken down in to individual Key Areas described in the SQA arrangements documentation. To 'pass' this component students must respond correctly to at least half of the questions - i.e. if there are 14 questions, 7 must be answered correctly. If a student doesn't meet this requirement they can be reassessed, but they need only to attempt questions from Key Areas that they did not 'pass' in their first attempt. If they do not succeed at a second attempt, they have not met the minimum standard and cannot progress unless there are 'exceptional circumstances' which would allow a third attempt.
- 2.2 Problem Solving (PS) - which is further broken down into four skills - Predicting, Selecting, Processing and Analysing. In these tasks student must correctly respond to at least half of each type of question in order to 'pass' that problems solving skill - i.e. if there are 6 processing questions, 3 must be answered correctly. Students who don't meet this requirement for each of the problem solving skills do not need to be reassessed, as other unit assessments will allow opportunities to demonstrate the same skills. Each skill need only be 'passed' on one occasion across each of the three unit assessments.
It should also be noted at this point that different marking instructions are applied to these assessments than those for the final exam. A standard calculation question in the final exam would be marked out of three, broken down into a mark each for: the correct formula; the correct substitution of the values given in the question; the final answer with the correct unit. A student making an error or omission would still be given credit for what is done correctly. In the unit assessments students' responses are either totally correct or just wrong. This means that any minor error leads to the student being penalised for the whole question.
Teachers giving these assessments must record each students performance in terms of 'pass' or 'fail' not just for each unit, but for KU and each of the four PS skills for each unit. This applies to courses at all levels from National 3 to Advanced Higher. The collating and recording of students' progress through these assessments is both complex and time consuming. However, more is required both of students and teachers.
In all courses except N3, students achieving passes in KU across each unit, and across each of the four PS skills must also complete two further tasks before they can sit the final exam -
- Outcome 1 - practical experimental report. This tasks is broadly similar to the LO3 task in the old Higher course where students perform an experiment and write up a detailed report meeting criteria set by SQA. This task is broken down into a number of individual outcomes, each of which can be achieved in any number of different activities. Students need only achieve each individual outcome once across the whole course - these must also be recorded by the teacher.
- Research task - The detailed requirements vary between courses, but in general this is an extended research task which is conducted by all students.
- At N4, the 'Added Value Unit' (AVU), which is internally assessed, contains a number of individual criteria all of which must be met in order for the student to 'pass' the task and achieve a course award. Students may receive feedback from teachers to ensure all the criteria are met.
- At N5, students conduct an 'Assignment'. This research task, which may or may not include experimental work, requires them to collate information as they progress through the task. At the end of the 'research phase' of the task, students are required to compile a report, including items demonstrating a variety of information processing and presentations skills 'under a strict degree of supervision'. The student can not be given any feedback on their report, which is sent to SQA for external assessment. The assignment report is given a mark out of 20 which counts towards the final grade.
- At Higher, students complete the 'Researching Physics' half unit within the course. This is assessed internally by teachers against criteria set by SQA and must include evidence of both research and practical work conducted by the students. The Researching Physics unit can be used as the basis for the students' remaining assessment task - the 'Assignment'. As for the N5 assignment, students must compile a report 'under a degree of strict supervision' demonstrating a number of information processing and presentation skills, and no feedback can be given. The completed report is sent to the SQA for external assessment with the mark out of 20 counting towards the final grade.
- At Advanced Higher the arrangements are similar to those for Higher, though pupils conduct extended practical work as part of their 'Investigation'. This is assessed both internally as a half unit, and externally through their investigation report which is compiled by the student through out the task. Students are allowed to be given feedback at all stages throughout this task.
Only when a student has successfully completed all of the internally assessed components of their course are they allowed to sit the final examination. At the end of all of this detailed and highly involved assessment the final grade awarded to the student will depend mostly on their performance in during the two to two-and-a-half hours spent in the examination hall, with no recognition at all of the tasks that have been successfully completed on the way.
Bearing in mind that students may be following as many as seven N5 courses, in which various other combinations of assessment tasks and arrangements may be in place, there is no doubt that the new CfE courses have significantly increased the burden of assessment on both students and teachers. This is clearly unsustainable and an alternative must be found.
In my next post, I will detail my proposals for reforming the process of assessment to reduce some of this burden and the certification of courses to allow greater recognition of the achievements students assessments throughout their courses.
I enjoyed your post. I'm not a physicist but I recall that right at the start SQA did not want to publish UASPs, allowing teachers to devise activities which would produce evidence of meeting the Outcomes and AS. Through their union, represented on the management board, teachers demanded exemplification of minimum competence at the 'new' levels and UASPs were born and all of the subject teams had to produce not one but, due to sector demand, three exemplifications of minimum competence. This instantly atomized assessment which I think is part of your complaint. I agree, atomized in this way, it does appear to lead to more assessment...unless AS are combined. My subject has 15 AS, easily combined in projects, essays etc. The AS serve a different function from the final exam: AS are opportunities to develop skills, while the final exam is a demonstration of skills mastered. SQA surveyed pupils and looked at research which led to the introduction of an assignment which, not only bridged the gap between some levels (which was needed in my subject) but is considered a fairer method of assessing skills as it takes into account more than just a final exam. I think about 30-40% of marks are now achievable through coursework. The response from my pupils (and parents) is overwhelmingly positive: most are choosing to research issues beyond course content. All that said, assessment can be constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed, so we haven't seen the last of this issue. Meantime, I like how it's going. So far, so good. I wish you and your pupils well with physics assessments.
I'm much more familiar with the assessment practices in the US, so thanks for this detailed explanation. The two parts that bother me the most are the same as for you: 1) the final exam gets most of the emphasis at the end of the day, and 2) all that other assessment, while quite thorough and likely meaningful to the students, sounds like a logistical nightmare. I'm looking forward to your next post to see what ideas you have.
My question is how uniform the non-final-exam assessments are teacher to teacher and school to school. They seem to be a great measure of what the students know and can do, but I suppose there must be some differences in how they're enacted.