 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 134 readers since 17 March 2008 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 134 readers since 17 March 2008 |
Waddell (1978) Notes on the text Part I Preliminary pages Contents, Membership
Part II Preliminary pages Contents, Membership Report of the Education Study Group (ESG) Glossary, Introduction
Report of the Cost Study Group (CSG) Chapter 1 Introduction
|
The Waddell Report (1978)
School examinations Report of the Steering Committee established to consider proposals for replacing the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level and Certificate of Secondary Education examinations by a common system of examining Chairman: Sir James Waddell CB Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales by Command of Her Majesty July 1978 London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1978
Part I: Cmnd 7281-I
Part II - ESG Report Glossary and Introduction Glossary of terms
Ability range Describes ability ranges in the school population. Used in relation to: (i) the whole school population, ie the whole ability range;Ability ranges are expressed in percentiles or percentages, from 0 to 100. Thus GCE O Level examinations are designed to cater primarily for candidates between the 100th and 80th percentiles (the top 20 per cent of the whole ability range) and CSE examinations primarily for the 80th to the 40th percentile (the next 40 per cent of the whole ability range). The ability range for a particular subject may be more limited than that for the examination system as a whole. For example, O Level and CSE examinations in modern languages, physics and chemistry are known to attract candidates from an ability range which probably does not extend below the 60th percentile. Able, average, less able (NB Our definitions of these terms are for the purposes of this report only. We claim no other validity for them.) When used in relation to candidates, these terms refer only to the subject ability range (see above). Thus in an examination subject attracting candidates between the 40th and 100th percentiles, 'able' would refer to some or all candidates within the 100th - 80th percentiles, 'average' within the 79th - 60th and 'less able' the 59th - 40th. When used in other senses, eg in relation to the whole ability range or the intended ability range, the text makes this clear. Agreement trial A meeting held to ensure as far as possible that teachers within a school or group of schools apply the same criteria, and work to the same standard in their assessment of pupils. It may be concerned entirely with the standards of school-based examinations, or involve relating such examinations to board-based examinations in the same or a similar subject. In the latter the board's examiners in the subject concerned are often involved. Aims and objectives The aim of an educational activity is to achieve a certain, usually broadly stated, end. Objectives are the means by which the aim is achieved and the stages towards it. Thus, a teaching aim might be to produce a better understanding of the economic affairs of the country; one of the objectives towards this (which could be tested) might relate to knowledge and illustration of the law of supply and demand. A standard specification of broad educational objectives offers six major ones: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. Assessment Refers to all the procedures which lead to a candidate gaining a result in a public examination. These may be based on examinations set and marked by the board, they may be carried out by teachers in the candidate's school or there may be a combination of both board-based and school-based elements. Methods include: continuous assessment, whereby the pupil's work is assessed intermittently or periodically during his course; course work assessment, whereby examples of work done during the course are taken into account; oral assessment, which may involve a spoken language test, or a test designed to enable the candidate to communicate ideas and show understanding of a subject in speech; practical work assessment, which may involve the assessment of a piece of practical work, or may be a more continuous assessment over a period of the process of practical work. Only the first of these examples (continuous assessment) is necessarily school-based; other methods may be either school-based or board-based. Bunching Occurs when examination marks collect together within a narrow range and in consequence fail to discriminate adequately between the performance of all candidates. Common examination Where all candidates take the same, ie common paper(s) or other examination component(s). Within the paper(s) the candidate may be able to choose, eg between essay subjects, or between questions on different set books - all such questions carrying equal marks. Or the candidate may be required to choose between questions carrying different marks (see below: 'Differentiated questions', 'Incline of difficulty', 'Tariff questions'). A common examination is one form of a common system of examining (see below). Common system of examining at 16+ A single system providing examinations designed for candidates in the same ability range as that for which the GCE O Level and CSE examinations together are currently designed. The examinations may consist either of common papers (or other examination components) or a combination of common and differentiated papers/components, but all grades must be awarded on a single scale and all certificates must bear a common title. Comparability Refers to the extent to which grades awarded by one examining board within a system (ie GCE or CSE) reflect the same standard as a similar grade in the same subject issued by another board in that system. It can also be used in relation to examination standards in the same subject in different years, and in different subjects in the same year. Correlation A measure of similarity between sets of marks given in the same examination. It is expressed as a figure between +1.00 (indicating that good marks on one test are associated with good marks on the other) and -1.00 (indicating that good marks on one test are associated with poor marks on the other). A correlation of 0 would signify that the two sets of marks are completely unrelated. Differentiated papers Describes papers or other examination components designed to enable candidates in different parts of the intended ability range to be examined at various levels of difficulty, necessarily involving a choice between papers in advance of the examination and consequent differences in the manner of preparation of the candidate. The choice of papers may limit the grades a candidate could achieve; by choosing easier papers it might be possible to obtain only sufficient marks for a lower grade and the highest might be obtainable by choosing only the more difficult papers. Differentiated questions Describes questions within a paper which are designed to be at different levels of difficulty and thus attract different marks. (See also: 'Common examination', 'Incline of difficulty', 'Tariff questions', 'Structured questions'.) Discrimination The capacity of a test (whether individual questions, papers, or the examination as a whole) adequately to distinguish between the performances of all the candidates. Incline of difficulty Refers to a series of questions (or papers) which grow progressively more difficult, to enable candidates to go as far as they are able. (See also under 'Structured questions'). Mean The arithmetical average of marks; ie the total of all candidates' marks divided by the number of candidates. Moderation A procedure or combination of procedures concerned with matching school-based assessment to the standards of the examining board. It may take different forms: scaling against an external paper; visits to a school by a moderator familiar with the standards of the board; and inter-school moderation whereby a group of schools meet to agree on standards. Objective questions Designed to yield one, and only one, acceptable answer. The questions may take one of several forms, the commonest being open-ended, true/false and multiple choice. Percentile This defines, at any point between 0 and 100, the level at which individuals perform in relation to their group. Thus someone at the 60th percentile has performed better than 60 per cent of his/her peers. Percentiles may be used in relation to a group of any size or of any kind. In this report, however, their use is restricted to the whole 16+ age group. It should be recognised that distribution between points of the scale is not even. The 'distance' between the 50th and 55th percentiles, for example, is smaller than that between the 90th and 95th because of the tendency for more people to congregate around the middle of the distribution scale than at either extreme. Thus an individual might move up from the 50th to 55th percentile by getting a few extra marks; whereas moving from the 90th to 95th would require much higher attainment. Reliability The accuracy or consistency of an examination component which is regarded as reliable if it would yield similar results if repeated by the same candidates under the same conditions. Skewed distribution Used to denote the bunching of candidates towards one end of the ability range taking the examination, or of marks towards one end of the mark scale. Standard deviation In examining, a measure of the distribution of marks obtained by all pupils in an examination. Examination marks clustered round the mean will result in a small standard deviation; if they are well spaced the standard deviation will be larger. Structured questions These are questions set in the form of a number of sub-questions, all relating to the same topic, and often designed to lead from easy to more difficult items (see 'Incline of difficulty' above). More difficult parts of the questions normally carry more marks than the earlier ones. Tariff questions This term relates to a form of examination paper which allows choice of easier, or harder questions; each question or part-question is given a stated mark value. The only limitation is on the minimum number of questions required to obtain the maximum mark. Validity An examination is said to be valid if it measures what it is intended to measure, ie the specified content and balance of the syllabus. Weighting The influence of an individual component of an examination in determining the final mark.
Introduction
1. The Steering Committee brought this study group into being to make recommendations about the feasibility of a common system of examining at 16+. We have set about that task by reviewing: (i) the reports of the feasibility studies (1) conducted by the consortia of examining boards;2. The first of our meetings (there were 9 in all) was held in July 1977. The material available to us, therefore, included much which related to experience of the joint examinations up to and including the summer of 1977. To that extent, and to the extent that we were able to use other information not to hand when the Schools Council's submission to the Secretary of State was being prepared, we were somewhat better placed than the Schools Council in attempting to assess the value and impact of work subsequent to the original feasibility studies. 3. The number of documents before us was formidable, and reflected the considerable effort which the examination boards and teachers had put into the consideration and trial of a common system. Because we aimed to complete our work as early as possible in 1978, and because the documents were detailed and complex, the reading and analysis of this material presented practical difficulties. We therefore adopted a method of work which enabled us to cope with the documentation and which also allowed us to draw on the knowledge and experience of subject specialists. 4. The basis of our approach was the establishment of a reading/administration team drawn from HM Inspectorate and the staffs of the Schools Council and Department of Education and Science, extended temporarily for each subject by HMI subject specialists and members of the staff of the Schools Council. To this group we delegated two types of work: (i) the preliminary study of each relevant document;Both of these activities were the subject of a succession of written and oral reports to us by the team. In this way we had access to the views of many experienced people and to a great deal of information, ranging from the consortia reports of the original feasibility studies to details of subsequent joint examinations, syllabuses, question papers, mark schemes and in some cases marked scripts, although in this latter respect we relied in very large measure on the professional judgement of those who were familiar with the work of the pupils and with the scripts. These reports were often long, detailed and technically complex. In this report we have adapted them to make their content more accessible to the general reader. 5. Our study, and therefore also the work of the team, was arranged so that each main subject or group of subjects was considered separately. English language was the first to be considered and was followed by mathematics. These are basic subjects and it was essential to attempt to draw conclusions as early as possible about feasibility in their case. Having considered all the subject areas offered in the joint examinations we turned our attention to the general question of feasibility. 6. Our overall conclusions and recommendations are set out in chapter 1. Before we could arrive at these, however, and whilst we were working through the subject areas, we had to make a number of basic assumptions and decisions on issues relating to all subjects. Perhaps most important of all, we assumed that, as a matter of practicality, a recommendation and decision about a common system would have to be made before any new development work could be mounted. We also decided that, although our prime objective was to establish whether a common system was feasible, we would take note of and record those areas where there seemed need or scope for further consideration and investigation. In following that line we attempted to identify on the one hand essential work to be undertaken between the date of a decision and the date of the introduction of a new system; and, on the other, work which is desirable in itself but is not essential in the context of a common system. At the same time, and whenever possible, we drew on particularly good examples of operational joint examinations, or aspects of them, and, to a more limited extent, have raised a marker against those examinations or aspects which have not worked very well. We kept in touch with the Cost Study Group and indicated to them points which had implications for their work. 7. In formulating our views, subject by subject, we had no ready-made definition of a common system which we could use, and in fact we accepted that a full definition could be drawn up only in the later stages of our discussions. We found it necessary, therefore, to adopt a working definition. It took the form set out in the glossary of terms and is given in slightly fuller form in chapter 1. 8. To review the feasibility studies, we also needed a list of criteria or of questions to be answered. As a basis we used the seven questions framed by the Joint Examinations Sub-Committee (JESC) of the Schools Council, adjusting them in each case to take account of the distinctive features of the subject. The seven JESC questions and our own agreed list of questions are to be found in Appendix B. They sought firstly to test the reliability and validity of the joint examinations, that is, the characteristics we have come to expect of public examinations in general. Secondly, and of crucial importance for our investigation, we sought to establish whether the objectives, syllabuses and examinations were appropriate for the range of ability for which a common system would cater and in particular whether the examinations were able to discriminate adequately between candidates over this range. 9. Before making judgements on the second of these points we had to review the definition of the target group for a common system which we had inherited from the Schools Council's proposals. The feasibility studies and the existing joint examinations were designed for the ability range for which GCE and CSE examinations are together intended, that is the top 60 per cent of the whole ability range, subject by subject. This coincided with our own view of what the target group ought to be, although there is evidence that candidates are entering for O Level and CSE examinations from outside their intended ranges. In a few subjects large numbers have been entering CSE examinations from well below the 40th percentile, particularly since the raising of the school leaving age in 1974. Whilst we assumed that entry would continue to be open to those whose ability falls below the range for which the common system would be designed, we accepted the Schools Council's view that in general the needs of the candidates in the top 60 per cent of the range should be the test of the feasibility of a common system. Numbers of candidates taking the subjects common to GCE O Level, CSE and joint 16+ examinations are shown in the table at Appendix C. 10. We accepted also that whilst the examinations should be designed primarily with pupils in their fifth year of secondary education in mind, they should be available to younger and older candidates whether in schools, colleges of further education or entering privately, and that there should therefore be no upper or lower age limits on entries. The examination should of course be open, as at present, to candidates on a single subject basis with no requirements as to the number of subjects which may be taken. We recognise that examinations which at least in part rely on school-based assessment will need to include alternatives for the use of private candidates, overseas candidates, part-time day and evening students and those taking correspondence courses. 11. Examinations in certain subjects such as physics, chemistry, modern languages and classical subjects are in practice taken by candidates from a narrower band of ability than that for which a common system is to be designed. The chapters on individual subjects make clear where this is the case. We considered that if was unnecessary to demonstrate in those subjects that a common system could cater for candidates down to the 40th percentile, although it may be desirable eventually for examinations in such subjects to be accessible to candidates below the present entry levels. In the subject chapters we indicate where possible the potential for extending the scope of the examinations in this way. 12. We had to assure ourselves that the intended ability range, or in some cases the existing range taking O Level and CSE, was indeed covered by the joint examinations. To do so we agreed that this could be said to be the case if candidates were represented in sufficient numbers (as indicated by the grades awarded and by other evidence such as standardised tests) rather than in proportion to their distribution in the school population. In this respect it was necessary to exercise our judgement rather than to rely purely on statistical evidence. Footnotes (1) The 'feasibility studies' were sponsored by the Schools Council and mostly involved operational 16+ examinations jointly devised by consortia of CSE and GCE boards: some of the consortia continued subsequently to offer joint examinations. The term 'joint examinations' refers to the original feasibility studies and the subsequent joint examinations. 2 A list of those consulted is given in Appendix A. 
|
