e-Assessment - the battlelines are drawn

Today's publication of the second report of the Chief Regulator of Ofqual not only opened up the important debate about e-assessment but to some extent has signalled that this is the desired direction of travel.

Just so we know what we are talking about, the report defines e-assessment as:

For our purposes e-assessment is where the learner responds to questions or tasks on a computer. It does not necessarily mean that the computer carries out the assessment. ..... Nor do we use the term ‘e-assessment’ to mean the use of technology as a tool to support other aspects of the assessment process, such as on-screen marking or the standardisation of markers.

Standards in e-assessment Ofqual Website

The report touches on a number of key areas in this debate:

1. Cheating: "Care must be taken to ensure that a candidate cannot copy from a neighbour’s screen, make inappropriate use of the Internet or exchange information if the assessment runs over a number of days."
2. The number and length of test windows– the time during which candidates can take their assessment. "Is it better to have a longer time period or a number of single-day windows?"
3. School Technology infrastructure: "At present many test centres, and particularly schools, may not have the technology infrastructure available for all candidates, for a large examination to take an e-assessment at the same time."
4. Is "on-demand" testing, whereby the learner takes the assessment when it is most appropriate, desirable or even essential?
5. Most importantly, can an e-assessment framework be produced which avoids distorting the curriculum merely to make it easier to assess on a computer? "Whatever its nature, assessment must cope with all the richness and diversity of the teaching and learning experience."

I believe that there are good educational and social reasons to make significant changes to our public examination system, so I welcome this report, but my fear is that the agenda outlined above does not go far enough. I think that it is desirable that we move to an examination system where pupils have access to the Internet, at least for some of their examinations. There is an obvious parallel here to the debate about calculators in Mathematics exams in the 1980s, the tedious use of slide rules and log tables has gone and the advent of calculators actually meant that pupils can get on with doing more mathematics. Thus, I am intrigued by the reference in the report [quoted above] to the "inappropriate use of the Internet", as this does offer a ray of hope that there will be appropriate use of the Internet in examinations.

It does strike me as rather counter-intuitive that at the very time that schools are considering moving away from the traditional "ICT suite" and are beginning to embrace the idea of pupils using their own small mobile devices in classrooms to support their learning, that we are going to have to invest in some form of fixed-desk infrastructure for examinations.

Further Information
PDF version of the report (Ofqual)
Pen and paper exams 'could be axed' (Daily Telegraph)
Forget pen and paper, it’s time to switch to on-screen GCSEs (Times)
Are public exams entering the twenty-first century? (Blog post 1 May 2009)
QCA efutures website

Ofqual condemns new Science GCSE - but have they answered the right question?

Ofqual's criticism of the current science GCSE system is unsurprising [See BBC], but they really have missed the point. It is not just the mechanisms of assessment are flawed, but that the level of the scientific content has been reduced.

Teaching professionals have being arguing for a long time that new GCSE science curriculum [that was first examined last year] has been dumbed down. The GCSE Core Science curriculum, which now forms a component of the separate science GCSEs, contains little that those of us of the O-level generation would recognise as science. There are so many science-in-society elements that are driven by a social agenda and do not require hard scientific skills or knowledge that it has become "Noddy and Big Ears do science".

Ofqual is insisting on changes for 2009 including

• Improved quality of questions, to stretch and challenge all students
• Work, including training for senior examiners, to improve objective tests (multiple choice)
• Tighter marking criteria to ensure that only the answers deserving of the marks are credited
• Some internal assessments revised to ensure better challenge to students
  

Laying aside the practical problem of moving of the goal-posts this close to the summer's examination, I believe that Ofqual have missed the point here. Their analysis ignores the fundamental problem with core GCSE science, namely the nature of the syllabus content.

Listen to the response of Jim Knight, Schools Minister, on the Today Programme

Try a Core Science paper for yourself:

• AQA Core Science Biology Sample Paper
• AQA Core Science Chemistry Sample Paper
• AQA Core Science Physics Sample Paper
  

Ofqual and academic standards

Letter to the Sunday Telegraph - published Sunday 1st March 2009

How to end A-level grade inflation.

Sir - We should not be surprised that Ofqual is unsure how to maintain examination standards [Sunday Telegraph, 15th February]. Ofqual, like QCA before it, is faced with an alliance of Government, Exam Boards, schools, parents and pupils all of whom want higher grades.

The solution to year-on-year grade inflation is therefore unpalatable, but essential, lest our examination system descend any further towards the point of meaninglessness. We must abandon the "standards" based approach and return to a system that awards grades on the basis of how a candidate performed in relation to his peers. This would provide a transparent system whereby everyone would then know that an A* indicated, say, a performance in the top 10% of candidates, an A grade the top 20% and so on. There would be no 'progress' for Government ministers to celebrate, but Universities, employers and, importantly, students would then know where they stand.

Free from pressures to achieve ever better grades, Ofqual, the Government, Exam Boards, schools, parents and pupils will be able to work together to raise academic standards.

Mark S Steed
Principal, Berkhamsted School
Berkhamsted, Herts

[Text in blue edited for publication]

Qualification Inflation: Can we do better?

Ofqual, the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator, have concluded that A-levels "should be toughened up". Clearly the statistics speak for themselves. With a National pass rate of 97% and more than a quarter of A-level papers passed at A grade it is no surprise that universities are reported to be finding it difficult "to identify the most promising students".

However, there are three aspects of this debate which are regularly overlooked.

First, "A-level Grade Inflation" has been a key driver towards the Government's target of 50 per cent of young adults going on to higher education. A pass rate of 97% enables more young people to achieve the threshold grades to go on to university. One consequence of this, marching in step with "A-level Grade Inflation", is its twin, "University Offer Inflation". We are all familiar with the impact that this has had at the prestige end of the academic spectrum as it has become a hardy perennial of the broadsheets: Russell Group university departments swamped with applicants with top grades and no time, energy or inclination to differentiate between them. However, "University Offer Inflation" has had a great impact at every level. Grade inflation may have made it easier to go to university, but it is as hard as it ever was for young people to gain places on a good course at a top institution. Furthermore, I am concerned that all that has happened is that employers have been forced to adjust their entry qualifications to allow for "Qualification Inflation".

Secondly, there are dozens of good Independent Schools sending out young people with top A-level grades, who go on to top universities and gain 2:1 and First Class degrees. How are employers to distinguish between the plethora of straight A at A-level, 2:1 graduates?

Independent Schools are approaching this problem in two ways. Some schools are exploring alternative qualifications: the International Baccalaureate, the Pre-U and so on. This has complicated the system still further, as it is difficult to compare the different systems and the arguments about their respective tariffs are set to continue for years. Other schools remain committed to ever higher academic standards within the A-level structure. Either way, I believe that it is important that schools explore a broader view of education that places a greater emphasis on a breadth of education, fostering interests for life and developing skills for the workplace. Ultimately, academic qualifications get interviews, but that personal qualities get the job. Schools abandon these broader educational ideals at their peril.

I welcome Ofqual's willingness to consider "recalibrating" A-level grading and hope that we can return to a genuine gold standard of A-level. There are real advantages in having a uniform National education qualification. A-level, for all its flaws, is widely understood by universities and employers. There is a danger in the quest for alternative routes that no one, outside the secondary education system, will understand what a particular qualification means.

Thirdly, Summer 2010 sees the introduction of the A* at A-level, so the present Lower Sixth [Year 12] will be the first to be awarded this grade. What has disappointed me about its introduction is that initial indications are that universities will not use the A* in their offers. For example, the Oxford and Cambridge websites both indicate that standard conditional offers "are likely to be AAA"; and, despite the introduction of the A*, Imperial College, and Oxford have decided to introduce their own entrance tests instead [See TimesOnline].

One might think that top universities would welcome the A* at A-level as a way of differentiating between applicants on the basis of academic merit - after all they have been complaining that the current grade A is not fit for this very purpose. As the Principal of an Independent School with a strong academic record, I welcome the introduction of the A* as an opportunity for my most able students to stand out from the crowd. However, I suspect that the Government will not share my enthusiasm. The introduction of the A* is likely to demonstrate that Independent Schools are producing a disproportionate number of the top candidates - which is certainly not 'on message' with their wider social engineering agenda. I wonder if this is what is really behind the decision of top universities to ignore the A*?

AFTER NOTE [14/02/09]
It is interesting that, in his attack on Labour schools' policy, Professor Adrian Smith, one of the Government's top education officials, argued that

Universities "won't touch" a new elite A* grade at A-level for fear of recruiting too many sixth-formers from independent schools.

Daily Telegraph. Friday 13th Feb

The thrust of his argument was to suggest that Labour's educational reforms had focused on "the masses" at the expense of bright students.