Month: May 2020

Exams: A fair system?

Covid19 has forced the cancellation of this years GCSE and A-Level exams.   As a result of this schools are being asked to submit grades for their students with a number of people expressing concern over the fairness of the grades which will result.   But were the exams ever fair?

Public exams were introduced in the mid eighteen hundreds, over 150 years ago and I would suggest that they haven’t changed that much.    They are now a foundational element of the world we live in.   Your qualifications, or the grades you get in these qualifications largely determined by exams, dictate your progress and the options available to you as you progress through the education system.  From secondary education to further education then onto university and eventually careers each influenced by the grades you achieve.     To pass each exam a key skill is memorisation.  To memorise key facts, to memorise approaches to using these facts and to memorise and practice techniques to manage exams.   The issue is that in a world of technology, a world where most of us carry Google in our pockets complete with the worlds biggest collection of knowledge plus videos and animations to demonstrate how to use this knowledge, is it really critical that we memorise things?

For some student memorisation is easy as is exam technique and therefore the exam system is perfect for them.   For others memorisation is more difficult and exams bring out exam stress.  In terms of the end outcome both types of students may be capable of the same things, albeit one may need to quickly review Google for assistance.    This seems to be biased in favour of those students who are better suited to exams which is unfair.

Lots has also been written about differing achievement rates in different types of schools, different social-economic backgrounds, etc.   I am not going to expand on this here, only to say that most discussions finish with a lack of equity for students in differing circumstances being identified; that students access to learning and preparation for the all important exams isn’t fair.

Taking “fairness” a stage further, we would expect all students who answer a particular question in a particular way to achieve the same number of marks however, outside of fact-based questions, answers need to be marked by human examiners which introduces variability.  Yes, there are standardisation/moderation processes to try reduce the probability of students receiving unfair outcomes but these only reduce the probability rather than eliminating it.

We also have the annual adjustment of marks boundaries to reduce unfairness where a particular years exam questions might be more or less difficult that the previous years.   On one hand this is good as it seeks to reduce the probability of unfair outcomes, however the existence of this process, and of the standardisation/moderation processes mentioned above both acknowledge the fundamentally unfair nature of exams.

For 2019/20 there will be no exams and instead teachers who have worked with students throughout the year will be making professional judgements as to what students would have achieved.   Schools will then be seeking to check that results across the school are fair, followed by the exam bodies to checking fairness across all schools.   I am not sure how this will be any more or less fair than what we had before.   It may be that the sudden nature of the introduction of this process may be unfair, but outside of this I am unsure that it will have introduced any greater variability than that which existed previously.

I think those asking about the fairness of the 2019/20 results are asking the wrong question.  I suspect some may be invested in the exams machine, while some maybe so used to the exam system that they are scared of potential change and of the unknown.   The big question I find myself with is, if we can issue final qualification grades in 2019/20 without the need for final exams, do we really need these standardised exams in 2020/21 and beyond?

Some books for lockdown

During lockdown I have found myself able to read more.   This might relate to less other options such as going to the cinema, going out for a meal, or going out shopping, or it might relate to time gains made each day due to working remotely rather than having to drive to work.     Given the increased opportunity to read I thought I would share 5 book recommendations.  I have tried to pick a bit of a cross section of topics in terms of the books, but you may be able to see a bit of a theme which aligns with some of my current thinking.   I note that these are all books I have read in the last couple of years:

Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely

Ariely explores how we believe ourselves to act rationally, using the available information to arrive at decisions, while in reality our actions are often far from rational.   One of the key issues I feel the book identified is how oblivious we often are to our irrationality and how we often create narratives to help us justify our decisions after the event.

“when stripping away our preconceptions and our previous knowledge is not possible, perhaps we can at least acknowledge that we are all biased”

The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb

Talebs book explores the human tendency to look towards averages and generalisations and therefore to miss the dangers and opportunities which the unlikely event might yield.   He explores how sadly the unlikely event, the black swan, is often not considered until after it happens at which point it is no longer an unlikely event.   Given the current situation we find ourselves in, in a global pandemic, I think this book may be more relevant than ever.

“the illusion of understanding, or how everyone thinks he knows what is going on in a world that is more complicated (or random) than you realise”

The Culture Map by Erin Meyer

Meyer explores the business world, however this is largely applicable to all organisations including schools, and how cultural norms have a significant impact on what works and what doesn’t.   As we increasingly live in a global world and therefore prepare students for this world, this book provides useful insight into the need to consider our own culturally identity and culturally driven views as well as the impact culture has on those we deal with on a day to day basis.

“when you are in and of a culture – as fish are in and of water – it is often difficult or even impossible to see that culture”

I am right, you are wrong by Edward De Bono

De Bono’s book is one which I read some time ago however I still find it an interesting read and especially so when you look at the binary arguments which arise on social media.   De Bono explores how differences of opinion arise and how we often use broad categorisation in our debates, among other areas.  He also explores how our attempts to constantly improve and refine thinking, practices, etc may be flawed.

“critical thinking is easy because the critic can focus on any aspect he or she likes and ignore the rest”

The Silo Effect by Gillian Tett

Tett examines how our organisations use hierarchical structures to sustain themselves once they get above a certain size.   She discusses how this can lead to silos of knowledge, skills, etc and how we can seek to try and break down these silos.    In the current world where information is easy to access via the internet and people can easily share and collaborate, I think this book is important in helping to break down the limitations of the historical organisational structures we have built.

“Social media created both the potential for people to open up their social world and to restrict it into self-defined groups, or cyber tribes”

 

I hope the above recommendations are useful for those trying to identify what to read next.   I would also welcome any recommendations or suggestions from others as to  books to read during this period of lockdown.

 

Sync and async remote learning

I have seen a number of posts on twitter pitting Synchronous and Asynchronous remote learning approaches against each other.   Sadly, this kind of binary viewpoint is all too common, if not specifically catered for and encouraged on social media platforms.    As I have often said, sadly the world is not that simple.   So, I thought I would add some of my views:

Synchronous

If we take the SAMR model and the first element of it, substitution, using live video as a substitute for the classroom experience seems to make sense where the classroom experience is not an option.    At a basic level it looks like a simple swap.   Through live video students continue to get access to some of the visual ques present in face to face communication.   They also have the opportunity to engage in the more social side of learning with quick feedback and two-way communications allowing discussion points or ideas to be explored and clarification to be sought where confusion arises.   I believe the social benefits of video-based communication in particular are very important as learning is very much a social activity so the more similar we can make it to “normal” social interaction the better.

The challenge with the above being access to high speed internet to support video plus issues around latency of sound and video which cause problems as soon as multiple people try to talk or where people try to interject with their thoughts or comments.  These issues don’t exist in real time face to face situations in a classroom, or at least they don’t where good classroom management exists.

Another synchronous option might instead be the use of real time discussion or chat solutions.  This doesn’t have the same issue in relation to a need for bandwidth or in relation to video/audio latency.  That said, I believe that typed comments, thoughts, ideas and questions are simply a proxy for spoken offerings, and as a proxy lose some of the detail which exists with face to face real time communications either in real life or via video.  As a result, you can expect higher rates of miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Probably the biggest concern with a synchronous approach is that of workload, stress and strain.   Delivering either real time video or chat isn’t normal when compared with how lessons are generally taught.    This means teaching this way represents a cognitive load in terms of using the technology tools, considering pedagogical approaches and adjusting these, and managing to get feedback from students as an activity or lesson progresses;   Never underestimate the feedback a classroom of students provides through comments, body language, the groups attitude, etc, all of which are more difficult to gather remotely via a screen.  This departure from the current established norm therefore represents an additional load on teachers.

Asynchronous

This focusses more on providing content with students able to work on it in their own time.   From a teachers point of view this is likely to be less stressful as they can plan and develop the required content, including repurposing already produced resources for sharing content.   As it doesn’t put the students directly in front of the students the cognitive load isn’t as significant, as teachers have time to think before responding to students or before posting the next activity.

The challenge here however is that in asynchronous learning the social aspect is lacking.   There isn’t the same interaction between students and teacher or between students and their peers that there is with synchronous or real time activities.    There is also a greater reliance on intrinsic motivation as it requires the students to complete activities in their own time without the teacher prompting in real time.

Sync vs async?

We would never suggest that learning in a classroom, in real time and face to face, was either synchronous or asynchronous.   The teacher might lead a class through some content or a discussion in a synchronous fashion then later in the lesson provide students learning activities to work through in a more asynchronous fashion.   The teacher may then review learning with students back in a more synchronous style.     We would never suggest the teacher just provide resources for students to work through in classroom lessons, or that the teacher and students spend their lessons all working together.

So why is this even being discussed in relation to remote learning?    It doesn’t make any sense to me!

Learning is a complex process best nurtured by experienced educators who know which tools to use and when, who know when they need to work in synchronicity with students or when to empower students to work on their own or in groups in a more asynchronous approach.    It isn’t a question of synchronous versus asynchronous learning.   Its, as is often the case, about finding the right balance between the two extremes, the balance which suits the teacher, the students and learning which is taking place.

Did you know: Updated

I have updated my Did you know guide to include more tips and suggestions including more in relation to Microsoft Teams which continues to be my favourite tool during this period of Remote Learning.

You can access the updated Did You Know guide here.