Critics say that the current focus on assessment in Britain means that the public debate is overlooking how schools are engaging young people and preparing them for the future. Cambridge Assessment’s concerns over the narrowness of the debate are leading us to investigate the issues in greater depth. We are debating the key issues and want to explore what role exam boards – and other organisations – should have in shaping good curricula.
We believe that what is needed is clarity over a qualification’s educational purpose: does it deliver a coherent programme of learning; is there a clear progression route; and most importantly is it the right ‘programme’ for the learner?
What’s your view?
Is curriculum coherence important and how do we address the relationship between assessment and the curriculum? Read the views on curriculum thinking from education experts in the documents below. Do you agree with their points of view? Tell us what you think.
‘The right relationship between curriculum and qualifications’ by Tim Oates, Group Director of Assessment Research and Development- ‘Curriculum planning and design: International Perspectives’ by Professor David Bridges, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
- The rise of curriculum thinking discussion paper from University of Cambridge International Examinations
- Developing a model for investigating the impact of language assessment by Nick Saville, Ph.D, Director Research and Validation, University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations
These views and your comments will help to inform our live debate in London on 31 January 2012.
Follow @Cam_Assessment
5 Comments
Tim Oates raises a key issue of validity in relation to curricula. Validity is a complex and debated concept. A key area of ongoing theoretical debate is around whether, and if so to what extent, assessment consequences are a part of validity. Some argue that any impact that an assessment has (e.g. effects on the curriculum and on learning experiences) should be included as a concern within the concept of validity, whilst others argue that only consequences relating to the use of student results (e.g. the consequence of achieving a certain grade on the student’s access to employment or further study) are part of validity. However, regardless of any future agreement about whether or not the effects of an assessment on the teaching and learning experienced by students should be included within the technical definition of validity, there is no denying the importance of the effect assessments have on learning and ensuring this effect is positive.
Why, during my reading of Tim Oates’ article, did the terms ‘curriculum coherence’ and ‘curriculum control’, evoke a gloomy response from me? Was it because nowadays I can only see them as leading to more ‘top-down measures’, despite Tim’s reassurance that they do not necessarily have to?
In my early years of teaching A level English, I remember choosing the periods I wanted my students to study, and which books, almost entirely on the basis of what I thought I could make worthwhile and enjoyable for them for two years.
But the culture was different then. It was before we had a centrally planned curriculum, and there were eight examination boards, offering different syllabus packages, which could support my independence.
Was it fair that my students’ experience of literature was constrained by my personal interests? Or was it to their benefit that I could work with them on texts which I could enthuse about and enjoy with them? Perhaps I was not ‘delivering the public goods’ which the state was paying me to deliver.
So the central place of teachers in developing the curriculum, as well as in delivering it, was taken over, as were the places occupied by other professional agencies. And these latter included the exam boards which, especially if we consider the CSE boards, did support the integration of learning and assessment.
Now there are those who argue for the coherence and control of one national board. But at the heart of any thinking about what makes a curriculum worthwhile must be the role and contributions of individual teachers, with their idiosyncracies and enthusiasms.
Like Andrew Watts (posted 12th Dec) I too remember teaching A level English early in my career. I remember being handed a selection of texts for my upper and lower sixth form groups accompanied by some past examination papers. I know that as a new teacher I, and my students, would have benefited from knowing more about the syllabus and the required teaching. Nowadays the curriculum and its assessment are more explicit creating stronger teaching, learning and assessment links. The existence of a range of qualifications allows some choice for teachers and students so that they can select courses that suit their preferences and their needs. Although an element of choice is important there must also be ‘coherence’ and ‘control’ which are not necessarily synonymous with restriction. The term ‘assessment led curriculum’ is sometimes used with negative implications but ‘good’ assessment can be beneficial to teaching and learning with assessment as a positive force at the heart of a good education.
The problem here seems to be that the discussion is centring around Eng.Lit. Which I also taught in FE many years ago. This is, of all subjects perhaps, the most subjective, in terms of the teachers’ attitude toward the chosen matter, and the students’ response to the enthusiasm of their teacher.
Clearly other subjectsmay lend themselves far more easily to a standardised curriculum and clearly defined outcomes, in terms of final assessment.
This whole debate seems to assume that “the curriculum” means a set of content (knowledge, understanding, skills, beliefs, attitudes, what have you) which can be encapsulated in a written document. But what makes for Good Learning is not content, it is pedagogy. In many ways WHAT is taught is nothing like as important as HOW it is taught. It is the HOW that will determine, as a few people said yesterday, that students leave school knowing how to learn more and wanting to learn more.