 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 147 readers since 17 March 2008 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 147 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 Chapter 4 Science
Introduction 85. Secondary school science courses leading to public examinations are still very largely in physics, chemistry and biology, the main demand from users being for O Level or equivalent qualifications in these subjects. However, a wider range of science studies is available for examination at 16+, including variants of physics (eg engineering science) and biology (eg human biology), and combined or unified courses like physics-with-chemistry or integrated science. 86. These and other developments have meant both new thinking on teaching methods, involving an approach to science as a process of inquiry leading to understanding - reflected particularly in such work as the Nuffield Science Teaching Project - rather than as the absorption of large blocks of factual material; and the extension of the ability range for which science courses are or should be available, mainly through the development of CSE courses. Nevertheless, the sciences, especially the physical sciences, emerge as demanding subjects with a candidature very largely from the 100th to the 60th percentile of the ability spectrum. Although the whole range of approaches to science effectively draws in candidates down to the 40th percentile, no established pattern of science courses for weaker pupils entered for public examinations exists to assist the judgements necessary in assessing the feasibility of a common examining system. The evidence 87. It is a disappointing feature of the joint examinations that, apart from one small-scale non-operational exercise in some aspects of integrated science, they were all mounted in physics, chemistry or biology. The main conclusions of this report must therefore be related to these subjects. However, a great deal of work has been done elsewhere on aspects of science assessment. Some account has been taken of this which, together with experience of other developments in science teaching, makes it possible to attempt some more general conclusions. 88. The joint examinations in science are listed in the following table. The list number (following the subject initial letter) is used as a reference throughout the rest of the text. Discussions and meetings were held with some of the consortia and with a range of subject interests and science subject professional institutes. The ability range 89. GCE O Level and CSE entries for physics and chemistry have generally been from the higher ability levels. Biology has tended to draw from a rather wider range of ability, and has attracted far more of the increased numbers of pupils taking examinations at 16+ than the other two subjects. The consortia thought that all their studies had attracted the full ability range currently entered for GCE and CSE examinations in their subjects, but there were doubts about whether high ability pupils were proportionately represented in some cases. The syllabus and objectives 90. Most of the work on syllabuses was related to a common examination rather than to other forms of a common system of examining. Although understandable, this has proved unfortunate since it limits the extent to which a definitive judgement of feasibility can be made. 91. Some consortia considered that they had achieved a fair measure of success with syllabuses leading to common examination papers. In general this may be true for biology; but for physics and chemistry such examinations have unsatisfactory features which make the common examination approach less suitable. The middle of the ability range for physics and chemistry currently examined by the dual system is well enough provided for; the problems arise for the more able and less able pupils. Whilst the syllabuses provide satisfactory objectives it is not clear that these can be realised, since much of the syllabus content is conceptually too demanding for the less able, or fails to provide adequate stimulus for the more able. One of the main factors involved is the mathematics content necessary, particularly in physics and chemistry 16+ examinations, for potential A Level students. (The science institutes expressed particular concern about the mathematical implications of a move to a common examination for this reason). In particular, the attempt to assess the full ability range by means of a common examination in physics and chemistry is difficult to reconcile with the need to provide an adequate grounding for A Level work. More detailed comment on the joint studies for the particular subjects follows. Biology 92. It appears that many syllabuses are potentially suitable for all the intended ability range; and that the subject intrinsically allows for candidates to respond at different levels to the same examination questions. Most of the syllabuses reflected the more traditional features of current GCE/CSE ones; an exception was B3 which introduced work units, whereby pupils of different abilities were enabled to work at their own level. Within the more conventional approach of B1 and B2 there was also an attempt to distinguish between the levels of response expected across the ability range. Apart from B3 the syllabuses were too long, although this is also a common feature of current GCE and CSE science syllabuses. Chemistry 93. The inclusion of material too difficult for some candidates was most marked in this subject. Whilst knowledge and (sometimes) comprehension could generally be tested across the ability range, synthesis and evaluation were rarely relevant to the weaker candidates. Use of formulae, equations, calculations, chemical bonding, were all identified by teachers as topics to be omitted for weaker candidates, and the demands of the more recent examinations have been less severe. C1 incorporated options, thus requiring selection of content for both teacher and pupil. Despite the danger that able pupils may be tempted to opt for 'easier' questions in the examination than they should, this structure does point the way for further development in defining parts of a syllabus likely to be relevant only to the more able. In this subject and physics the attempt has generally been made to reduce the length of syllabuses to reasonable proportions. Such attempts deserve encouragement, despite the ever present difficulty of ensuring that the omissions do not result in an unbalanced experience for pupils. Physics 94. Both P1 and 2 were basically traditional physics syllabuses, although 2 covered some unusual topics. Initially, 1 adopted a common core plus alternative options aimed broadly at the more able and the less able pupils, although it has since been modified. This differentiated approach obviously presents difficulties in terms of equivalence, and implies selection for the alternatives at some stage, P2 is more straightforward, but somewhat behind current curriculum development in certain respects. Its stated objectives were ambitious and would be very difficult to implement fully. The syllabus and the examination 95. For biology a common examination seems feasible; candidates can be faced with tasks which can be tackled in various ways and at different levels. The studies which used this approach (B2 and B5) had to overcome many difficulties on the way, but the use of optional papers and teacher assessment was found to allow the best chance of varying the level of tasks appropriately. For physics and chemistry, however, the need to cater for a wider ability range than these subjects have traditionally attracted seems to require a wider battery of assessment techniques, involving an approach through differentiated papers. 96. In all three subjects the consortia used broadly similar techniques in their written examination sections: a first paper of objective questions in some form, and a second of structured questions, sometimes (in biology) with essay-type questions added. For pupils at the middle and lower end of the ability range for the subjects, and particularly for less able pupils, the need to read large amounts of material and to express themselves in prose presented difficulty, even in a structured paper. On the other hand, structured questions were useful for enabling many average and some less able pupils to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding. Essay-type questions were considered particularly useful in identifying and catering for the more able. 97. Teacher assessment is seen as an important means of allowing flexibility in teaching methods across the ability range. Such assessment featured in four of the biology schemes, and was substantial in both chemistry schemes. In physics it was confined to practical work, although course work assessment was a possibility with one of the papers in P1. Some research evidence supports the view that straightforward practical examinations have been of limited value and are better replaced by school-based assessment of practical skills. Such skills are seen as important in the biology schemes, but only B1 and B2 used a formal examination for them. Similarly there is no formal practical examination in either chemistry scheme; and in physics, P1 has recently abandoned this approach. A generally greater commitment to teacher assessment has obvious implications for teacher time. Marking and grading 98. There has generally been a conscious attempt not to approach the studies from a specifically GCE or CSE standpoint. In all cases assessment was carried out by examiners from both backgrounds, and in all consortia the attempt was made to see candidates as part of a continuum. Although difficulties of discrimination arose for particular parts of the ability range the overall picture is one of reasonable satisfaction with the technical aspects of the written papers. There was more concern, however, about technical aspects of internal assessment, particularly moderation procedures. In biology, three schemes gave rise to anxiety about the varying standards of teacher assessment, although in all cases criteria had been clearly stated. But both the reports of the consortia and our own scrutiny suggest that these are difficulties which can be overcome. The examination and the ability range 99. As indicated, the schemes have given some clear pointers to the difficulties of catering for a wide ability range in science subjects, and suggest that the use of common papers may present considerable problems if all candidates are to be assessed properly and stimulated to give of their best. The evidence is that these problems may be manageable in biology, where a sound line of development may be the use of common core material, supported by options allowing pupils to perform at different levels. For physics and chemistry, however, differentiated papers may be necessary, and it is no criticism of the experimental studies that they do not provide a firm answer. The major difficulty of providing for the less able pupils already exists in the dual system, and arises largely from the abstractions and mathematics involved. The studies have resulted in examinations which perform technically as well as, in some cases better than, existing examinations. It was perhaps too much to expect that they would solve current curriculum problems, particularly for the less able pupils. 100. It follows therefore that work must continue into the design of syllabuses and forms of assessment which define what might be expected of pupils at different levels of ability. In the studies there is a relative shortage of evidence about the operation of a common system based on differentiated papers as distinct from a common examination. Further development work should therefore include investigation into a differentiated approach, with assessment schemes using papers set at different levels. 101. It also seems necessary to continue with investigation of the value of alternative approaches to science. The studies concentrated on the sciences as three separate subjects, and little attention has been paid to the potential of more broad-based approaches (eg integrated science), which might be more relevant to some pupils at all levels of ability. A number of schools have adopted these approaches, which are relevant to the whole range of ability. The development and design of a range of new syllabuses reflecting conjoint and unified approaches to science could make an important contribution to the place of science in a common 16+ examination system. Conclusion 102. A common system of examining in biology, chemistry and physics is feasible. In biology, it could take the form of a common examination but this approach would not be fully satisfactory for chemistry and physics. The studies offer sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that a common system of examining is possible in chemistry and physics. Differentiated papers will probably be required, however, if the most able pupils are to be given an adequate preparation for A Level work, and the less able are to be stimulated and enabled to achieve their potential. More development work is urgently needed in these two subjects and should follow these lines. 103. The place of unified or integrated approaches to science subjects is less clear. But they should have a place, and further work on them is needed. The relationship between individual science subjects and these other approaches will need to be clarified. 
|
