I love the observation about the 2-mark explanation question. It seems like whenever we're trying to do too many things at once (in this case, marking reliability and authenticity of the responses) we often end up with the worst of both worlds.
The same thing can be said with subject knowledge and inquiry/problem solving/communication questions. Perhaps they should be evaluated separately so that a student's lack of communication skill doesn't prevent them from getting full marks on the subject knowledge part? But then we have the trade-off between the length of exams and the validity of the results.
Our experience in assessing writing has shown us that it is a complex skill in its own right. So if you are going to try and assess understanding of other subjects through extended writing, you have to be sure the students are able to write well first!
I often struggled with this when I had to mark exams or write questions (thankfully, I generally don't anymore - though marking theses is no easier!). It seems hard to develop an objective and fair marking schedule for questions, even when they're not very open-ended (for example, writing out a small snippet of code or several sentences of explanation). Inevitably, when marking, I'd change how I marked something as I progressed through the answers.
It really seems like no one talks about it either, especially in higher education. It's accepted that you made a very approximate effort and didn't offer any feedback - just as long as your grades are approximately OK and most people pass!
Such an astute observation. I find so often that the gap between theory and practice in education is chasmic, but you’ve got a very realistic outlook Daisy. That’s why I love reading what you write!
Without making the same observation (though I could have, if I were as astute as you!), I found another trade-off this week: sacrificing something that makes teachers’ lives easier for a way to improve student skill acquisition. It really is exactly what happens when we come up with a ‘solution’.
As time goes by I become more of the view that most exams are an unnecessary waste of time. I have sat a fair few in my time including the 11 plus (failed) which indicated that I was not cognitively competent for an academic education. Fortunately I managed to study for A levels and get to university and gain a first. I say this not to boast (well just a bit then!) but to confirm that over the decades our state education system exams have rarely been fit for purpose.
Exams provide an assessment based on a few hours of frantic scribbling. They suit some people far more than others. For many particularly those who don't thrive on formal exams they serve to devalue the learning that the pupil/student has engaged with over the preceeding years. GCSE is a good example of this.
Back in the dark ages on the last century most youngsters left school at 15/16 years of age. Many had no formal educational qualifications at all. That includes many who passed the 11 plus and went to grammar schools. You would have imagined they'd all gone on to take A level and then to H.E. but that wasn't the case. Most went straight into work. Of course there was work aplenty whether in management training, factories, apprenticeships as well as posts in local government, police, nursing. The list goes on. Fast forward to the 21st century and we are fast entering a world where few occupations are open to you unless you have a degree or the entry qualifications to start one. Pity those 40 % of 16 year olds who didn't get L4 in English and/or maths. Not much open to them. We now have a national shortage of craftspeople. Don't get me wrong. Assessment matters. I don't want people driving on the public highway unless they havd proven their competence. I don't want medics practising on me unless they too have proved their competence. Or architects designing buildings..... But there has to be a point to it all. I'm not sure about the point of GCSEs. Except thst the grades decide who get a ticket for the next stage of the education ladder.
I love the observation about the 2-mark explanation question. It seems like whenever we're trying to do too many things at once (in this case, marking reliability and authenticity of the responses) we often end up with the worst of both worlds.
The same thing can be said with subject knowledge and inquiry/problem solving/communication questions. Perhaps they should be evaluated separately so that a student's lack of communication skill doesn't prevent them from getting full marks on the subject knowledge part? But then we have the trade-off between the length of exams and the validity of the results.
What do you think Daisy?
Our experience in assessing writing has shown us that it is a complex skill in its own right. So if you are going to try and assess understanding of other subjects through extended writing, you have to be sure the students are able to write well first!
I often struggled with this when I had to mark exams or write questions (thankfully, I generally don't anymore - though marking theses is no easier!). It seems hard to develop an objective and fair marking schedule for questions, even when they're not very open-ended (for example, writing out a small snippet of code or several sentences of explanation). Inevitably, when marking, I'd change how I marked something as I progressed through the answers.
It really seems like no one talks about it either, especially in higher education. It's accepted that you made a very approximate effort and didn't offer any feedback - just as long as your grades are approximately OK and most people pass!
Yes, it is under appreciated how even quite short and seemingly closed questions can be hard to mark reliably.
It's why I am quite positive about machine marked multiple choice questions with automatic feedback. I realise not everyone likes them though!
Such an astute observation. I find so often that the gap between theory and practice in education is chasmic, but you’ve got a very realistic outlook Daisy. That’s why I love reading what you write!
Without making the same observation (though I could have, if I were as astute as you!), I found another trade-off this week: sacrificing something that makes teachers’ lives easier for a way to improve student skill acquisition. It really is exactly what happens when we come up with a ‘solution’.
As time goes by I become more of the view that most exams are an unnecessary waste of time. I have sat a fair few in my time including the 11 plus (failed) which indicated that I was not cognitively competent for an academic education. Fortunately I managed to study for A levels and get to university and gain a first. I say this not to boast (well just a bit then!) but to confirm that over the decades our state education system exams have rarely been fit for purpose.
Exams provide an assessment based on a few hours of frantic scribbling. They suit some people far more than others. For many particularly those who don't thrive on formal exams they serve to devalue the learning that the pupil/student has engaged with over the preceeding years. GCSE is a good example of this.
Back in the dark ages on the last century most youngsters left school at 15/16 years of age. Many had no formal educational qualifications at all. That includes many who passed the 11 plus and went to grammar schools. You would have imagined they'd all gone on to take A level and then to H.E. but that wasn't the case. Most went straight into work. Of course there was work aplenty whether in management training, factories, apprenticeships as well as posts in local government, police, nursing. The list goes on. Fast forward to the 21st century and we are fast entering a world where few occupations are open to you unless you have a degree or the entry qualifications to start one. Pity those 40 % of 16 year olds who didn't get L4 in English and/or maths. Not much open to them. We now have a national shortage of craftspeople. Don't get me wrong. Assessment matters. I don't want people driving on the public highway unless they havd proven their competence. I don't want medics practising on me unless they too have proved their competence. Or architects designing buildings..... But there has to be a point to it all. I'm not sure about the point of GCSEs. Except thst the grades decide who get a ticket for the next stage of the education ladder.