Non examined assessment (in PE)

Arrangements for a number of new GCSE, A level and AS qualifications are “in train.” Awarding Organisations are preparing the content, Ofqual overseeing the assessment. On the issue of assessment, “controlled assessments” or “non-exam assessment,” it has been in the Ofqual crosshairs for a while, since the Ofquals report back in June.

The conclusion is that controlled assessment did not always test the skills they were meant to assess, that they could disrupt classroom time which could be better spent on teaching and learning and frequently offered limited evidence of performance differentiation across a group of students. Importantly, controlled assessment had the potential to narrow the focus of what was taught and “be vulnerable to malpractice.”

Based on the findings from this review, Ofqual are working to a new set of principles that they will be applying in reformed GCSE qualifications:

1. Non-exam assessment should be used only when it is the only valid way to assess essential elements of the subject.
2. Non-exam assessment must strike a balance between the valid assessment of essential knowledge and skills, sound assessment practice and manageability.
3. Any non-exam assessment arrangements should be designed to fit the requirements of the particular subject, including the relative weighting of written exams and other components.
4. Non-exam assessment should be designed so that the qualification is not easily distorted by external pressures

More simply, the new GCSEs and A levels, “assessment will be by exam only, except where the essential skills for a subject cannot be tested in an exam.” Add to this that exams “will only be tiered where one set of assessments cannot in a manageable and valid way assess students across the full ability range be graded 9 to1.”

So what of non-examined assessment? What does that mean for practical or performance subjects and the much debated Science practicals? New “hoops” to prepare for – stretching and limbering up as we speak, and I am not the only one deliberating the role of non-examined assessment.

Martin Robinson has been reflecting on the impact of non examined assessment in generally and in drama particularly. Meanwhile I have been reviewing the reliability, validity and manageability of the non-examined assessment in Physical Education.  My review is a little back to front, as my review was based on the “current” Ofqual subject criteria and Awarding Organisation specifications, it would perhaps have been prudent to consider both the content and the assessment at the same time – but I had to start somewhere.

GCSE Subject Criteria for Physical Education Subject Content

Specifications should be based on four performances in practical contexts in at least two different types of activity. At least two performances must be as a player/participant (in the full course).

GCSE specifications in Physical Education must require learners to develop their physical competence in different:

• types of physical activity;
• contexts within a physical activity;
• roles such as player/participant, leader and official.

I am never quite sure why Physical Education students are expected to demonstrate that breadth?  Then to overlay the three roles (player/participant, leader and official) is inclusive though unnecessarily complex. Afterall, I do not think any exam board would argue that all three roles require non-examined assessment. Interestingly, with the leader and official roles, we do not accredit leader and official qualifications?

The inclusivity of the three roles, multiple activity groups and subsequent combinations is unnecessarily complex and potentially vulnerable to manageability issues. A simplified performance component and consistent viva voce style assessment may prove a solution. Furthermore that the breadth of expertise required by teachers to cover the breadth or sports in the three roles, can only impact on both the validity and reliability of non-examined assessment.

Widespread access, ease of use of video technology and file transfers, enables communication and standardisation, as already advocated by exam boards. Perhaps sport performance does not suffer the same degradation as drama performance as highlighted by Martin Robinson?

It could be argued that other than the actual player/participant role, theoretical content (planning, preparing/organising and reflecting) on a leading / officiating could be incorporated in the exam itself, in much the same way that proposals for Geography fieldwork will be assessed and incorporated in the exam itself, for example,

EG You are working at a junior sports camp and have been asked to plan and lead a multi sports session. What key factors need to be considered when planning a session for 8 years olds.

(4 Marks)

One often discussed learning opportunity in Physical Education (love it or loathe it) is the Personal Exercise Plan (PEP). Attributed low marks, this could be extended, offers real academic, scientific, literacy and numeracy development opportunities. The skills learnt and developed through planning and participating in a PEP could very easily be examined and the PEP discounted from the “performance” weighting, for example,

Q In apply the FITT principles to a Personal Exercise Plan for a games player (eg hockey, rugby, netball, football) how would you expect to week 1 plan to differ from the week 4 plan.

(4 Marks)

After reviewing Physical Education as a stand alone performance subject, having read Martin’s blog post, I looked for standardised procedures for other performance subjects. Review the table and draw your own conclusions.

Cross curricular “performance assessment” parity and validity might be a sensible objective, however I am confident it is far more difficult to achieve than it is to critique. As are comparable outcomes, though it is not difficult to identify the subject inequalities, even given the pupils Key Stage 2 profiles of each subject.

The real dilemma for Physical Education is the practical weighting assigned, is a subject concern at GCSE, the balance between attracting pupils to study PE as both a practical and as an academic subject, whilst retaining academic credibility. Defining this balance requires significant consideration. Not wishing to encourage the wrath of my fellow professionals, I would prefer a model with less but focus, non-examined assessment or performance. An insightful was for students to articulate their knowledge and understanding of Physical Education OR examined assessment supported by a more practical delivery model.

• 30% performance – through a significantly simplified rubric addressing the issues of manageability
• 20% theory of “performance” – possibly a viva-voce style or examined assessment

Finally, an extended theory component with some of the exciting Physical Education and Sport/Exercise Science areas of study.

• 50% theory (to include an assessment of practical learning experiences such as the Physical Exercise Plan)

There are a number of Physical Education and Sport/Exercise Science areas of study that lend themselves to the development of wider scientific, literacy and numeracy skills enhancing cross-curricular relevance and enriching the subject, for example;

• an introduction to sports performance analysis (numeracy)
• performance profiling
• sports nutrition
• injury and injury prevention (linking to the leader / officiator roles)

A number of topics also draw upon social, moral, spiritual and culture issues, such as,

• examining contemporary issues in sport (addressing inequalities in sport, sportsmanship and gamesmanship),
• culture and media in sport
• ‘sports business.’

One last thought – should students be given a “performance” and a theory grade?

My thanks to Oliver Woodfield (Qualifications Developer – AQA) and Dr Chris Spray (Loughborough University) in particular for their contributions.

[qr_code_display]