As the result of my experience of last year’s verification, which I describe below, I would like to suggest that the only certain way to be sure of fair and accurate assessment is to have external assessment, either whole or in part. I say this coming from a UK background where I taught A level physics for ten years completely with external assessment and enjoyed the freedom to be able to concentrate on teaching to a high standard without the constant stress and demand on my time of incessant setting and marking of assessments.
Let me share the nightmare I experienced over verification in 2011. I awarded my top two physics students VHA 8 & 7 respectively – these were not inflated grades, I had considered placing them higher. At verification both students were moved down to HA 3! Yes, ‘HA’ 3, a drop of 14 rungs!! I was in total shock, stunned, could not believe it! As you can imagine I then spent considerable time thoroughly reviewing the panel’s comments, my assessment instruments, my marking, everything – how could I have got it so wrong? My confidence as a competent teacher was severely shaken even with thirty years’ experience. Without going into all the details, after my review of the material I was confident (as confident as one can be in this vague, confused, contradictory system) that I was right in my original placement of these students. After a lengthy and detailed discussion of the instruments and students scripts, the panel chair agreed to reinstated them to VHA 6 & 5 – back up 13 rungs. At this point I decided discretion was the better part of valor, accepted my gains and did not point out that QSA instructs panel members not to drop students less than three rungs if they are going to be moved at all. So there we were – from VHA 8 to HA 3 and back to VHA 6! Incredible!
However, this was not the end of the nightmare! I teach the same two students in maths B and awarded them VHA 8 & 6. At verification the panel moved them down to HA 10 & 9 – on appeal they were reinstated to VHA 7 & 5!! It was the same dreadful, emotion draining mess, all over again.
SECTION REMOVED TO PROTECT PRIVACY BUT THE AUTHOR STATES THAT THESE WERE BRILLIANT STUDENTS WHO GOT LOTS OF AWARDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS
The point of bringing all this to your attention is to illustrate the gross failings of this cumbersome, time wasting system. These two examples are not isolated from what I hear from other colleagues. What would have happened to these two students had I not successfully been able to contest the panel’s decision? How could the system have got it so monumentally wrong? Every year one waits with apprehension for what the lottery of verification will return.
It would appear that the system of internal assessment, panel moderation and verification, much vaunted by QSA is, at best, one that is muddled, poorly managed, variable from region to region, and open to subjective interpretation. At worst, it is highly wasting of teachers’ valuable time, prone to gross inaccuracies and leads to a lowering of standards.
So, are there solutions? The notion of using criteria has some merit and is not the problem in and of itself. It is a good thing to assess criteria that are central to being able ‘to do’ physics, chemistry, maths b, etc.. As I see it, there are two central problems and a number of peripheral issues:
The first central problem is that of writing assessment instruments: the difficulty and inordinate amount of time needed to write suitable quality assessment instruments that adequately assess the breadth and depth of the required criteria to the satisfaction of QSA makes the job daunting to say the least.
The second problem is that of marking: of interpreting whether or not students’ responses meet such and such a criteria to such and such a standard. This is primarily because, by their very nature, criteria statements, at best, are not precise and are open to subjective interpretation by teachers and panel alike. At worst they are unclear, confusing and very difficult to use accurately. Again, a huge amount of time is taken in trying to do the job as accurately as possible.
Peripheral issues include situations such as:
If a student fails to attempt a question on a certain criteria altogether what grade should he be awarded – cannot be an E as he has not met even that criteria.
Or what if a student has a set of marks for, let’s say the Knowledge and conceptual understanding criteria, such as:
Out of four C grade questions he got one completely correct, the other three were nonsense or not attempted and awarded no grade.
Out of three B grade questions two were completely correct, the other not attempted
Out of two A grade questions one was done poorly and awarded C, the other was not attempted.
How do you award an overall grade for that combination? In the old days the marks would simply be totaled, but what does one do with that variety of grades?
Another issue with using criteria/letter grading is how the final verification grade given?
If criteria grades are awarded on an A, B, C basis i.e. the student has or has not met the standard for an A grade criteria, how can a student be considered an VHA 6 compared to a VHA 3 say. Again we are back to vague, subjective, uncertain decisions.
In the light of all this I propose that the only way to overcome all these uncertainties is to use external assessment where instruments are written by people who have the necessary amount of time, who have had adequate training and experience in writing instruments that properly assess the required criteria. Similarly, marking should be done by people who have had adequate training in understanding and interpreting criteria, who will bring a consistency and fairness to all students’ results.
In this way it could be hoped to avoid the huge range of interpretations of criteria and marking procedures that one hears regularly from colleagues in different regions. The constant re-inventing of the wheel from school to school would be avoided with associated waste of time; and most of all teachers would be freed up to do what they do best – teach.