Section 3
Assessing 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?
© Curriculum Foundation
1
So, how do we assess skills? We suggested earlier that the
best way was to observe them being deployed.
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.
Assessing 21st Century
Skills
A Guide to Evaluating
Mastery and Authentic
Learning
2012 Corwin Books
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uHWu_pPEPiUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=assessing+21st+century+skill
s+laura+greenstein&ots=u2BGDqqkor&sig=yvSYadAxTsWMZpDOPn_kwrTn9M#v=onepage&q=assessing%2021st%20century%20skills%20laura%20greenstein&f=false
© Curriculum Foundation
2
‘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?)
© Curriculum Foundation
3
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
4
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
5
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
6
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
7
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?
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
8
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?
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
9
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
10
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?
© Curriculum Foundation
11
The national
curriculum in
England
Key stages 3 and 4 framework document
September 2013
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?
© Curriculum Foundation
12
© Curriculum Foundation
Yes, they are all skills.
Knowledge
But what about the progression? Is
there any ‘skills ladder’ here? Do we
have to develop our own skills ladder?
Understanding
Or can we use the knowledge context?
Skills
To do that, we need to look at the
‘Subject Content’ section of the new
programmes:
© Curriculum Foundation
14
© Curriculum Foundation
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
16
Increasing range of contexts
Increasing complexity of contexts
© Curriculum Foundation
17
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!
© Curriculum Foundation
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?
© Curriculum Foundation
19
© Curriculum Foundation
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.
© Curriculum Foundation
21
Do you remember that:
The national
curriculum in
England
Key stages 1 and 2 framework document
September 2013
The national
curriculum in
England
Key stages 3 and 4 framework document
December 2014
• In Maths and Science there are specifications
for the end of each year from Y1 to Y6, and
at the
end of the
key stage
KS3 and
Sothen
this
model
works
forforMaths
KS4
Within those varied
at KS3, but there
what about
the
approaches,
are
two
key
• In English there are end of year specifications
subjects
and Key
forother
Y1 and Y2,
then
specifications
for
differences
with
regard
toLower
the
Primary (end of Y4) and Upper Primary (end
Stages?
of
Y6),
then
at
the
of the key stage
for .
specification end
of subject
skills
KS3 and 4
• For all other subjects, there are only end of
key stage specifications.
© Curriculum Foundation
22
The national
curriculum in
England
Key stages 1 and 2 framework document
September 2013
The national
curriculum in
England
Key stages 3 and 4 framework document
December 2014
All other subjects are set out differently
Science has a “Thinking Scientifically”
anyway. There are much more general
section at all key stages.
specifications that are not contentspecific.
Maths has a “Thinking Mathematically”
section at KS3 only
For example here is the entire
programme of study for Key Stage 2
English does not have a corresponding
Music.
section – but the “Aims” at the
beginning of each key stage set out
Look at the verbs – what is being asked
corresponding skills.
for?
© Curriculum Foundation
23
© Curriculum Foundation
So, we have sets of skills set out for:
So
model of
range and complexity
• the
Science
atincreasing
all key stages
works well for all subjects – but we have to look in
•different
Maths
at Key Stage 3
places to find the skills information that
we need. (Who decided to set it out like this? Is it
English
at Key Stages
2 & 3ofand
Maths
at
really intentional?
Which1,theory
history
do we
use here:
conspiracy
theory
ot the for
other
Key
Stagethe
1&
2 have sets
of –‘Aims’
each
one?
key stage that essentially set out subject
skills.
The assumption in this Unit is that KS4 assessment
will be based on GCSE criteria. We shall look at
In
allseparately.
other subjects, they are within the
EYFS
programmes of study at all key stages.
© Curriculum Foundation
25
In
sense,
these
subjects
easier
Theone
model
that we
explored
in theare
context
of
because
progression
is work
set out
yearwell
by within
year a
working across
a year, will
equally
year
for the
English
Maths
2.
across
keyand
stage.
It inis KS1
onlyand
necessary
to
assess against the set criteria.
Let’s look again at the way English, Maths and
Science are set out. Here are the aims for KS2
However,
this does not enable us to assess
English.
progress within a year.
© Curriculum Foundation
© Curriculum Foundation