[Maths-Education] The resource for the course

Hugh.Burkhardt@nottingham.ac.uk Hugh.Burkhardt@nottingham.ac.uk
Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:14:03 -0700


--============_-1211209241==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I see some key points in this 'conversation':

*  Most teachers prefer predictable questions in high-stakes exams, 
for understandable reasons.

*  Flexibility and adapability are important aspects of doing 
mathematics (indeed most things) well -- we need Thinkers not 
Automata (which can now be bought cheaply, putting human automata out 
of work)  Assessing these requires non-routine questions.  The 
balance of "transfer distances" is a subject for legitimate debate, 
but all 'zero-transfer' seems hardly defendable in terms of the 
declared goals of education.

*  Thus there should be an ongoing tension 'task-designers v 
teachers', seeking to 'maintain v minimise' non-routine-ness.  This 
is healthy. It leads to teaching that pays attention to higher-level 
skills and metacognition.

*  Non-routine assessment tasks do not have to be more difficult than 
routine ones -- the balance of 'load', between strategic and 
technical/conceptual aspects is different.  Such tasks do demand more 
design skill, and time, than simply tweaking questions from the past 
few years papers.  In particular:

*  Getting the level of challenge right requires trialling and 
revision of the tasks, sometimes through several iterations.  (Hence 
the opportunities for KS tests; they are not always taken)

*  Trialling is not within the official methodology of GCSE or A 
level (though some senior examiners have told me they do it, "of 
course")  The members of monitoring committees have to 'estimate' how 
students will respond to questions; their sense of responsibility 
naturally makes them unwilling to 'risk' unfamiliar tasks.  Should 
such trialling be introduced into these most important examinations? 
I think so**.

(It is ironic that the most important exams have the least design 
effort.  KS test:  =A310^6
A level/GCSE:  =A310^3)

*  If the test is broad and balanced, so will be the "The resource 
for the course".  WYTIWYG  There are excellent materials about that 
help teachers prepare their students for tackling non-routine 
problems. We believe that it is the responsibility of QCA + OCR/AQA/ 
=2E.... to ensure that their exams are such that "teaching to the test" 
leads teachers to deliver a curriculum that matches the declared 
goals for learning (which are usually broad and balanced)

Most recognise that there is still some way to go!

Hugh
MARS: Mathematics Assessment Resource Service


**   A few years ago, I suggested to SEAC (was it?) that in each main 
subject all exam groups should include about 25% of "common 
questions", commissioned and then selected by SEAC on a competitive 
basis with criteria of imaginative design and systematic development. 
These tasks would serve to provide:
	*  an "engine for improvement" (in the sense of this discussion)
	*  evidence on comparability of standards across groups
which would reduce the need for SEAC to micromanage the groups' work.

A fairly positive response did not lead to change.
--============_-1211209241==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: [Maths-Education] The resource for the
course</title></head><body>
<div>I see some key points in this 'conversation':</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; Most teachers prefer predictable questions in high-stakes
exams, for understandable reasons.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; Flexibility and adapability are important aspects of
doing mathematics (indeed most things) well -- we need Thinkers not
Automata (which can now be bought cheaply, putting human automata out
of work)&nbsp; Assessing these requires non-routine questions.&nbsp;
The balance of &quot;transfer distances&quot; is a subject for
legitimate debate, but all 'zero-transfer' seems hardly defendable in
terms of the declared goals of education.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; Thus there should be an ongoing tension 'task-designers v
teachers', seeking to 'maintain v minimise' non-routine-ness.&nbsp;
This is healthy. It leads to teaching that pays attention to
higher-level skills and metacognition.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; Non-routine assessment tasks do not have to be more
difficult than routine ones -- the balance of 'load', between
strategic and technical/conceptual aspects is different.&nbsp; Such
tasks do demand more design skill, and time, than simply tweaking
questions from the past few years papers.&nbsp; In particular:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; Getting the level of challenge right requires trialling
and revision of the tasks, sometimes through several iterations.&nbsp;
(Hence the opportunities for KS tests; they are not always
taken)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; Trialling is not within the official methodology of GCSE
or A level (though some senior examiners have told me they do it,
&quot;of course&quot;)&nbsp; The members of monitoring committees have
to 'estimate' how students will respond to questions; their sense of
responsibility naturally makes them unwilling to 'risk' unfamiliar
tasks.&nbsp; Should such trialling be introduced into these most
important examinations?&nbsp; I think so**.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(It is ironic that the most important exams have the least design
effort.&nbsp; KS test:&nbsp; =A310^6</div>
<div>A level/GCSE:&nbsp; =A310^3)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*&nbsp; If the test is broad and balanced, so will be the
&quot;The resource for the course&quot;.&nbsp; WYTIWYG&nbsp; There are
excellent materials about that help teachers prepare their students
for tackling non-routine problems. We believe that it is the
responsibility of QCA + OCR/AQA/&nbsp; ..... to ensure that their
exams are such that &quot;teaching to the test&quot; leads teachers to
deliver a curriculum that matches the declared goals for learning
(which<i> are</i> usually broad and balanced)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Most recognise that there is still some way to go!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Hugh</div>
<div>MARS: Mathematics Assessment Resource Service</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>**&nbsp;&nbsp; A few years ago, I suggested to SEAC (was it?)
that in each main subject all exam groups should include about 25% of
&quot;common questions&quot;, commissioned and then selected by SEAC
on a competitive basis with criteria of imaginative design and
systematic development.&nbsp; These tasks would serve to
provide:</div>
<div><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </x-tab>*&nbsp;
an &quot;engine for improvement&quot; (in the sense of this
discussion)</div>
<div><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </x-tab>*&nbsp;
evidence on comparability of standards across groups</div>
<div>which would reduce the need for SEAC to micromanage the groups'
work.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A fairly positive response did not lead to change.</div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1211209241==_ma============--