Completely agree with all the points you mentioned here. I do hope someone from the Ministry takes this seriously.
I am a teacher myself and I am not entirely clear what exactly the author is proposing so I can neither agree nor disagree. High level abstract proposals may sound great in theory but it is how these are implemented that will make or break a system. Proposals should explicitly state in excruciating detail what will be the objectively measurable end goals, how many *guaranteed* contact hours will be allocated to this end, and what will be the administrative constraints imposed on the educators. Moreover it must be clear from the start what will be the procedures adopted in ‘exceptional’ cases which happen all too often such when students miss a substantial amount of lessons for whatever reason or when foreign students are taken in at the middle or at the end of the scholastic year. All of this should be planned realistically.
It is unrealistic to expect teachers to chase the administration or other departmental entities to inform them that students who lost 50% of the lessons or which were taken in by the school late during the scholastic year cannot be given a fair ongoing assessment by the teacher. It is unrealistic to expect teachers to carry out official ongoing assessment which is also subject to moderation by external examiners during regular lessons as it is implicitly expected to happen when students who were absent during assessment sessions start attending once again.
This particular issue may require further explanation for those who are not in the field of education. In the recent past students used to be given summative assessments in the middle and at the end of the year, often by means of written exam and sometimes by coursework. There were dates and deadlines and if the student was absent on the day of the exam or the coursework was not handed in by the deadline then that was it. End of story. With the learning outcomes framework all of that changes. With the learning outcomes framework the focus shifts on assessment of work done in class. Moreover it is now up to the teacher to decide the dates and times of when such assessments are to take place. In principle this is good, however the logistical issues created and the situations that arise from them are anything but. In the past if a student had missed weeks of lessons when the coursework material was covered in class the teacher was not expected to stop delivering lessons to the rest of the class to help the previously absent students to catch up. The students were nonetheless expected to deliver their coursework by the deadline and to do the work on their time. Of course most teachers would give the students all the material necessary to complete the task and perhaps even dedicate some of their time during the breaks to help them catch up. In contrast the learning outcomes framework imposes that the work to be assessed must be conducted in class under the teacher’s presence in an official manner. At least that is how it is in my subject. This means that if some students missed one or more assessment sessions (the curriculum imposes multiple such sessions throughout the scholastic year) it is up to the teacher to find the time to conduct the missing assessment session for those students and all this while the rest of the class is also present and presumably engaged on other learning endeavors. Basically in such situations the teacher is implicitly expected to assess some students (under official assessment conditions, acting as an invigilator) while at the same time teaching the rest of the class.
2 comments
Completely agree with all the points you mentioned here. I do hope someone from the Ministry takes this seriously.
I am a teacher myself and I am not entirely clear what exactly the author is proposing so I can neither agree nor disagree. High level abstract proposals may sound great in theory but it is how these are implemented that will make or break a system. Proposals should explicitly state in excruciating detail what will be the objectively measurable end goals, how many *guaranteed* contact hours will be allocated to this end, and what will be the administrative constraints imposed on the educators. Moreover it must be clear from the start what will be the procedures adopted in ‘exceptional’ cases which happen all too often such when students miss a substantial amount of lessons for whatever reason or when foreign students are taken in at the middle or at the end of the scholastic year. All of this should be planned realistically.
It is unrealistic to expect teachers to chase the administration or other departmental entities to inform them that students who lost 50% of the lessons or which were taken in by the school late during the scholastic year cannot be given a fair ongoing assessment by the teacher. It is unrealistic to expect teachers to carry out official ongoing assessment which is also subject to moderation by external examiners during regular lessons as it is implicitly expected to happen when students who were absent during assessment sessions start attending once again.
This particular issue may require further explanation for those who are not in the field of education. In the recent past students used to be given summative assessments in the middle and at the end of the year, often by means of written exam and sometimes by coursework. There were dates and deadlines and if the student was absent on the day of the exam or the coursework was not handed in by the deadline then that was it. End of story. With the learning outcomes framework all of that changes. With the learning outcomes framework the focus shifts on assessment of work done in class. Moreover it is now up to the teacher to decide the dates and times of when such assessments are to take place. In principle this is good, however the logistical issues created and the situations that arise from them are anything but. In the past if a student had missed weeks of lessons when the coursework material was covered in class the teacher was not expected to stop delivering lessons to the rest of the class to help the previously absent students to catch up. The students were nonetheless expected to deliver their coursework by the deadline and to do the work on their time. Of course most teachers would give the students all the material necessary to complete the task and perhaps even dedicate some of their time during the breaks to help them catch up. In contrast the learning outcomes framework imposes that the work to be assessed must be conducted in class under the teacher’s presence in an official manner. At least that is how it is in my subject. This means that if some students missed one or more assessment sessions (the curriculum imposes multiple such sessions throughout the scholastic year) it is up to the teacher to find the time to conduct the missing assessment session for those students and all this while the rest of the class is also present and presumably engaged on other learning endeavors. Basically in such situations the teacher is implicitly expected to assess some students (under official assessment conditions, acting as an invigilator) while at the same time teaching the rest of the class.