Couldn't agree more. But it's infuriating work trying to make these simple points in schools at the moment. There's a wilful pollyannishness about unsupervised assessments especially. That somehow a few tweaks here and there will deal with it.
Just on point 5, from outside the UK it seems crazy to use predicted scores. Why not real scores? This has happened fairly seamlessly in Australia for 30+ years, and I cant imagine we're on the bleeding edge. We just have a big clearing house in each state that updates the applications with scores, does some filtering, and passes them along to the unis.
I agree with you on predicted scores v actual results. I think students applying with their results would make it far easier for them to make good choices about their courses.
Here the system is you just put in a set of preferences that span from optimistic/speculative to pessimistic backups. You can edit that list right up to a week or so after results. Then you just get offered the highest preference who'll take you.
In the US, we've had an increasing number of exams go digital using secure browsers. While this isn't appropriate in all situations or subjects, it's been going better than most folks had predicted. At this point, most states' tests in literacy, math, and science are digital, along with College Board's SAT and AP exams.
As a left-handed person, I appreciate how rarely I'm now in a position of needing to handwrite on paper - my hand is cleaner and my output less smudged!
I think there are various factors that conspire to prevent a radical overhaul of the current exam system in schools and in F.E. and H.E. One is custom and practice. Those who make the decisions have mostly been through the exam system and think that if they did it so should others. Another factor is the increasing dullness of teaching that is being driven by the academy system. There's little room for the type of creative teaching that would be needed if traditional exams were replaced by more applied tasks giving students opportunity to put what they've learned into practice. The other factor I'd suggest is vested interest in keeping the existing system going. Back in 2012 Ch 4 presented an investigative programme into the huge profits made by some exam boards. 9ver a decade ago schools were paying steadily increasing fees for exam boards’ services. According to the Ofqual figures back in 2012 schools in England paid £328m in exam fees last year – a 113 per cent increase on ten years ago. Fees went up by 8.5 per cent last year alone and spending on exams is now the second largest expenditure in secondary schools.On the receiving end of the increased cost are the exam boards. Latest figures then showed Edexcel had an annual turnover of £270m, while AQA had £159m and OCR, £115m. All are making millions in profits.
Doubtless this profit is even more now with the relentless focus on exams. Plus there'll be academics who enjoy earning a bit extra by marking or invigilating. It's a huge gravy train and I can't see those involved and benefiting giving up without a fight.
I really like the way you're thinking through the problem but I wonder why you've stopped short of challenging exams themselves. I agree that AI is fundamentally changing our model of AI and it requires adaptation at a structural level, so why not imagine a system without exams.
This doesn't mean to remove assessment, but to assess what work is being done and the demonstrated competencies of a student's applied knowledge, rather than theoretical information they hold in their heads.
I absolutely agree about scrapping formal written exams. I think one of the factors that came out of the last round of PISA testing was that in the UK we aren't good at creating opportunities for students to apply learned skills and knowledge and that's really they only valid test for deep and secure learning. There's plenty of evidence to show that a high percentage of those taking exams, including at degree level, regain very little of what they have been tested on unless they have a particular interest in the subject or use it in their career. There are some people who are very good at formal exams sometimes because they have a highly retentive memory albeit short term. I've no doubt some of the students who attain high marks in formal exams do so because they have a deep understanding of the underlying ideas and concepts but I suspect they are in the minority. They certainly get few opportunities to demonstrate it. And interestingly the subjects where there is a higher level of demonstrable application such as craft subjects, music, art are often perceived as less important than those deemed as academic. I also thought one of the best reading tests was getting kids to read from a joke book and explain what they found funny.
Yes, learning to do well at testing makes one good at testing, more so than the thing being tested. I have very strong students who are very smart but whose brains don't work in ways that allow them to express their intelligence on a test. For example, a passionate history student who has a very deep conceptual, analytical, and narrative mind but who doesn't retain names and dates.
Students need to start doing vocations from an early age in the safety of schools. I.e., they should be building rockets or robots, doing surgery in analogue ways but with real-world sensibilities, teaching others, solving real problems - doing activities rather than talking about them. Theory will be learned as a consequence of necessity. Theoretical dumping is holding us back from real competence and meaning.
Very interesting and thought provoking thread! Thanks to all who contributed. The stakes that exam boards themselves have in maintaining the status quo is something I hadn't thought about - I hadn't realised how much money they were making!
Cheating by using AI is so depressing. I'm not a huge fan of exams despite having taken and passed shed loads of them. I did my degree in the 1970s so not much chance of cheating. We did however have to write dissertations and produce practical work. I studied English and drama. I wonder is there more cheating in some subjects than others? The really sad thing about cheating to get a qualification is that it feels as if some students would be happier just skipping all the learning and studying stuff. Particularly at degree level it feels as if a degree is seen as an end in itself. The process doesn't matter because you need one to get a job.
Couldn't agree more. But it's infuriating work trying to make these simple points in schools at the moment. There's a wilful pollyannishness about unsupervised assessments especially. That somehow a few tweaks here and there will deal with it.
Just on point 5, from outside the UK it seems crazy to use predicted scores. Why not real scores? This has happened fairly seamlessly in Australia for 30+ years, and I cant imagine we're on the bleeding edge. We just have a big clearing house in each state that updates the applications with scores, does some filtering, and passes them along to the unis.
I agree with you on predicted scores v actual results. I think students applying with their results would make it far easier for them to make good choices about their courses.
Here the system is you just put in a set of preferences that span from optimistic/speculative to pessimistic backups. You can edit that list right up to a week or so after results. Then you just get offered the highest preference who'll take you.
"wilful pollyannishness" - yes, could not agree more.
"Keep handwritten exams"
In the US, we've had an increasing number of exams go digital using secure browsers. While this isn't appropriate in all situations or subjects, it's been going better than most folks had predicted. At this point, most states' tests in literacy, math, and science are digital, along with College Board's SAT and AP exams.
As a left-handed person, I appreciate how rarely I'm now in a position of needing to handwrite on paper - my hand is cleaner and my output less smudged!
I think there are various factors that conspire to prevent a radical overhaul of the current exam system in schools and in F.E. and H.E. One is custom and practice. Those who make the decisions have mostly been through the exam system and think that if they did it so should others. Another factor is the increasing dullness of teaching that is being driven by the academy system. There's little room for the type of creative teaching that would be needed if traditional exams were replaced by more applied tasks giving students opportunity to put what they've learned into practice. The other factor I'd suggest is vested interest in keeping the existing system going. Back in 2012 Ch 4 presented an investigative programme into the huge profits made by some exam boards. 9ver a decade ago schools were paying steadily increasing fees for exam boards’ services. According to the Ofqual figures back in 2012 schools in England paid £328m in exam fees last year – a 113 per cent increase on ten years ago. Fees went up by 8.5 per cent last year alone and spending on exams is now the second largest expenditure in secondary schools.On the receiving end of the increased cost are the exam boards. Latest figures then showed Edexcel had an annual turnover of £270m, while AQA had £159m and OCR, £115m. All are making millions in profits.
https://www.channel4.com/news/how-tax-free-exam-boards-profit-as-schools-pay-more
Doubtless this profit is even more now with the relentless focus on exams. Plus there'll be academics who enjoy earning a bit extra by marking or invigilating. It's a huge gravy train and I can't see those involved and benefiting giving up without a fight.
I really like the way you're thinking through the problem but I wonder why you've stopped short of challenging exams themselves. I agree that AI is fundamentally changing our model of AI and it requires adaptation at a structural level, so why not imagine a system without exams.
This doesn't mean to remove assessment, but to assess what work is being done and the demonstrated competencies of a student's applied knowledge, rather than theoretical information they hold in their heads.
I absolutely agree about scrapping formal written exams. I think one of the factors that came out of the last round of PISA testing was that in the UK we aren't good at creating opportunities for students to apply learned skills and knowledge and that's really they only valid test for deep and secure learning. There's plenty of evidence to show that a high percentage of those taking exams, including at degree level, regain very little of what they have been tested on unless they have a particular interest in the subject or use it in their career. There are some people who are very good at formal exams sometimes because they have a highly retentive memory albeit short term. I've no doubt some of the students who attain high marks in formal exams do so because they have a deep understanding of the underlying ideas and concepts but I suspect they are in the minority. They certainly get few opportunities to demonstrate it. And interestingly the subjects where there is a higher level of demonstrable application such as craft subjects, music, art are often perceived as less important than those deemed as academic. I also thought one of the best reading tests was getting kids to read from a joke book and explain what they found funny.
Yes, learning to do well at testing makes one good at testing, more so than the thing being tested. I have very strong students who are very smart but whose brains don't work in ways that allow them to express their intelligence on a test. For example, a passionate history student who has a very deep conceptual, analytical, and narrative mind but who doesn't retain names and dates.
Students need to start doing vocations from an early age in the safety of schools. I.e., they should be building rockets or robots, doing surgery in analogue ways but with real-world sensibilities, teaching others, solving real problems - doing activities rather than talking about them. Theory will be learned as a consequence of necessity. Theoretical dumping is holding us back from real competence and meaning.
Very interesting and thought provoking thread! Thanks to all who contributed. The stakes that exam boards themselves have in maintaining the status quo is something I hadn't thought about - I hadn't realised how much money they were making!
Cheating by using AI is so depressing. I'm not a huge fan of exams despite having taken and passed shed loads of them. I did my degree in the 1970s so not much chance of cheating. We did however have to write dissertations and produce practical work. I studied English and drama. I wonder is there more cheating in some subjects than others? The really sad thing about cheating to get a qualification is that it feels as if some students would be happier just skipping all the learning and studying stuff. Particularly at degree level it feels as if a degree is seen as an end in itself. The process doesn't matter because you need one to get a job.