© curriculum foundation1 section 3 assessing skills section 3 assessing skills there are three key...

© Curriculum Foundation 1

Section 3Assessing Skills

There are three key questions here:

• How do we know whether or not a skill has been developed?• How do we know how well skills have been developed?• Against what measures can skills be assessed?


So, how do we assess skills? We suggested earlier that the best way was to observe them being deployed.

Assessing 21st Century SkillsA Guide to Evaluating Mastery and Authentic Learning

2012 Corwin Books

Prof Laura Greenstein of the University of Connecticut advocates what she calls “authentic learning” that provides contexts within which assessments of “mastery” can take place.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uHWu_pPEPiUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=assessing+21st+century+skills+laura+greenstein&ots=u2BGDqqkor&sig=yvSYadAxT-sWMZpDOPn_kwrTn9M#v=onepage&q=assessing%2021st%20century%20skills%20laura%20greenstein&f=false
















‘Mastery Learning’ is often linked to a ‘competency’ approach, and Brian Male (In the two “Curriculum Design Handbooks” – see below for the reference) suggested that in this context a competency is “the ability to apply knowledge with confidence in a range of situations”.

This implies the use of skills to apply knowledge, so progression to the higher (or deeper) levels of learning can be seen as developing skills within the context of knowledge. (Do remember the ‘Tree’ from the Bridging Unit?)


Lorna Greenstein sees ‘authentic learning’ as being located in a real or realistic setting, so that learning is not just abstract and theoretical but meaningful to the learner in their own context. These settings then become the contexts within which skills can be deployed and so assessed.

Without the authentic setting, assessment is not so valid.

Authentic learning and ‘authentic assessment’ are part of a world-wide movement.


Sheila Valencia is Professor of Education at the University of Colorado. Her 1993 book ‘Authentic Reading Assessment’ is interesting in that one might have thought that reading is always located in its own setting anyway. It is skills like problem solving that might vary greatly from setting to setting, and when you really have to solve a problem in real life, then it might be much easier (or harder!) than in the classroom setting.

However, in Unit 3 we looked at ED Hirsch’s research that showed that reading skills are, indeed, contextually related. So ‘authentic’ learning and assessment are really important.


The key point here is that if we want to assess skills – be they subject skills or more generic ‘21st Century’ skills – then the best approach is to observe those skills being deployed. The more authentic the situation in which they are deployed, then the more valid the assessment is going to be.

Laura Greenstein’s point is that if skills are learned in an authentic setting , then they will be able to be deployed in an authentic setting. This is not just an assessment point. If we want our students to be able to apply their skills in real life, then we need to make our learning contexts as close as possible to those real-life situations. Hence ‘authentic’ learning and assessment.


This still leaves us with the issue of what we are measuring skill performance against. How do we know how good the performance is when we see it?

There are two separate approaches here:• A skills ladder• Contextual performance

Of course, you will already have set learning objectives in your planning and these will be your key assessment criteria.


You will be familiar with this approach. It takes a particular skill and imagines what the progressive levels might be. This then acts as a rubric or marking scheme, and so adds some structure and reliability to what would otherwise be a subjective judgment.

The issue is the extent to which we get these levels right, or whether there really are distinct levels, or whether skills can be considered (or even exist) outside of the context in which they are deployed.

Did you notice this ladder by the way? What do you think it is based on?

Doesn’t it look a bit like Bloom’s Taxonomy that we looked at in the Bridging Unit?


For example, the way you carry out an investigation in science is different from the way you investigate in history. Yet investigation is a skill. The ability to think critically (another skill) depends upon having sufficient knowledge of the subject you are thinking about.

Brian Male argued that there is seldom a need for a skills ladder, because the increasingly complex knowledge context provides the necessary progression.

Do you remember ED Hirsch suggested that skills are always contextually related and that it is impossible to create a skills ladder that does not take account of the context in which the skill is deployed?


In this approach, the skill is seen as staying essentially the same, but the context in which it is deployed becomes increasingly more complex. For example, a young child can carry out investigation of rolling cars down a slope and can control the variables of slope and surface etc.

Increasingly, they will be able to carry out more complex investigations (possibly ending with the Large Hadron Collider!). The skill of investigation has stayed the same (setting things up, controlling variables, drawing conclusions etc). What has changed is the level of complexity of the context in which the skill is deployed.

Hirsch would argue that this applies to all skills. His research showed that even reading skills are related to the learner’s knowledge of the subject being read.


So, there are two approaches here – skills ladders or using the knowledge context as the reference point of progress.

Skills ladders can be very helpful – so long as we remember that skills do not necessarily develop in such an orderly and hierarchical way.

It is also useful to consider the complexity of the context as the criterion of progression.

What is essential is to provide an authentic context in which the skills can be developed, and in which they can be assessed.

But, how does this fit with the new national curriculum?


As we noted in Unit 1, the new national curriculum is not set out in the same way for all subjects and key stages (Why not? What were they thinking of?). This inconsistency complicates matters.

However, let’s start with an example from Key Stage 3 Mathematics in the new curriculum. At this Key Stage, there is a “Working Mathematically” section.

Firstly, look at the sort of verbs that start each bullet point of this section (consolidate, select, substitute etc). Are these looking for knowledge, understanding or skills?


Yes, they are all skills.

But what about the progression? Is there any ‘skills ladder’ here? Do we have to develop our own skills ladder?

Or can we use the knowledge context?

To do that, we need to look at the ‘Subject Content’ section of the new programmes:

Knowledge

Skills

Understanding


You can see that this is not set out hierarchically, so does not provide a progression of knowledge (or ‘increasingly complex contexts’) in which the skills can be deployed.

However, as Brian Male pointed out (Male 2012) skills develop in terms of the range of contexts in which the learner can deploy them, as well as in the complexity of those contexts.

What the new national curriculum is giving us here is a range of contexts.


Incr

easi

ng ra

nge

of c

onte

xts

Increasing complexity of contexts

Skills progressio

n


However, if we go back to the second bullet point of the Maths skills list (slide 41) it says: “select and use calculation strategies to solve increasingly complex problems.”

So the increasing complexity of contexts is clearly being seen as important to progression. However this increasing complexity is not provided by the new national curriculum. This is being left to schools.

And what schools need to provide in order to promote and assess progression is not a skills ladder but a hierarchy of increasingly complex contexts. (So, no problem there, then!). But we are given the range!


Before we go on to what schools should do, look again at the ‘Subject Content’ section of the KS3 Maths (no need to go back – its on the next slide).

Look at the verb at the beginning of each bullet point.

What do you notice?


Yes, even the ‘Subject Content’ section is written mainly in terms of skills (use, interpret and compare, order ..).

There is one “understand” and nothing that is pure knowledge.

This is also the case for Maths in KS 1 & 2. But not in Science, as we shall see later.

22

So this model works for Maths at KS3, but what about the

other subjects and Key Stages?


Do you remember that:

• In Maths and Science there are specifications for the end of each year from Y1 to Y6, and then at the end of the key stage for KS3 and KS4

• In English there are end of year specifications for Y1 and Y2, then specifications for Lower Primary (end of Y4) and Upper Primary (end of Y6), then at the end of the key stage for KS3 and 4

• For all other subjects, there are only end of key stage specifications.

Within those varied approaches, there are two key differences with regard to the specification of subject skills.

23© Curriculum Foundation

Science has a “Thinking Scientifically” section at all key stages.

Maths has a “Thinking Mathematically” section at KS3 only

English does not have a corresponding section – but the “Aims” at the beginning of each key stage set out corresponding skills.

All other subjects are set out differently anyway. There are much more general specifications that are not content-specific.

For example here is the entire programme of study for Key Stage 2 Music.

Look at the verbs – what is being asked for?


So the model of increasing range and complexity works well for all subjects – but we have to look in different places to find the skills information that we need. (Who decided to set it out like this? Is it really intentional? Which theory of history do we use here: the conspiracy theory – ot the other one?

The assumption in this Unit is that KS4 assessment will be based on GCSE criteria. We shall look at EYFS separately.

So, we have sets of skills set out for:• Science at all key stages• Maths at Key Stage 3

English at Key Stages 1, 2 & 3 and Maths at Key Stage 1 & 2 have sets of ‘Aims’ for each key stage that essentially set out subject skills.

In all other subjects, they are within the programmes of study at all key stages.


In one sense, these subjects are easier because progression is set out year by year across the key stage. It is only necessary to assess against the set criteria.

However, this does not enable us to assess progress within a year.

The model that we explored in the context of working across a year, will work equally well within a year for English and Maths in KS1 and 2.

Let’s look again at the way English, Maths and Science are set out. Here are the aims for KS2 English.

© curriculum foundation1 section 3 assessing skills section 3 assessing skills there are three key...

Documents

authentic learning

skills section

use of skills

authentic setting

authentic assessment

context of knowledge

deeper levels of learning

curriculum foundation2