Constraints on innovation

21 Constraints on innovation

High-stakes testing has been shown to have negative effects on learners, teachers and the curriculum (Harlen 2005; Harlen and Crick 2002; Black and Wiliam 1998). One of the effects noted is that ‘although what is summatively assessed is valued in the curriculum, it is formative assessment that leads to learning’ (Harlen and Crick 2003 p1). This focus on summative assessment is largely due to its use for monitoring pupil, teacher and school performance. The reliance (in England) on narrow accountability measures based on exam success has limited both the opportunities for learners to use computers for learning (Somekh et al 2001) and the scope for experimentation with ICT in education (Davies, Hayward and Lukman 2005). This is less of a problem in the creative subjects, where performance and standards are not as yet so strictly monitored (Loveless 2003).

The nature of summative assessments is also an issue, because these ‘rely heavily on testing the memory of pupils and their ability to produce certain facts on demand’ (McFarlane 1997 p3). Lewin et al (2003 p48) argue that this approach to education, which is based on ‘the transmission of large quantities of pre-speciied knowledge followed by high-proile national tests to ensure that students meet attainment targets … can never maximise the beneits of this medium [ICT]’. Many claim that there is a mismatch between the nature of the learning that ICT can best support and what is assessed (Osborne 2003; Loveless 2002) and that this has limited the use of ICT in schools (Cuban 1993; Hennessey et al 2003). This view is echoed by Heppell (2000), who highlights the need to focus on process ahead of product, and argues that ‘Criterion referencing forces us to “do that which we did before”, resulting in the most innovative of children’s work being pushed into marginal areas of children’s learning or often outside of school altogether.’ The EUN (2003) similarly suggests that present assessment

methodologies tend to reinforce old-style pedagogies and cultures and, in so doing, limit the scope for the kind of social collaborative learning that a VLE can promote. Conversely it has been argued that if assessment (and the curriculum) were revised to relect the new learning goals, teachers would make greater and more appropriate use of ICT (Barton 2001).

Assessment and curriculum are closely connected, and while there is little in the way of empirical research that indicates a clear link between the introduction of the National Curriculum and National Strategies and a reduction in risk taking in schools, there is substantial support for this view within the education community (Hacker and Rowe 1997; Harlen 2005; Harlen and Crick 2002; Black and Wiliam 1998). This is accompanied by advocacy of the need to adjust the curriculum and assessment to place greater emphasis on creativity and higher-level skills. The ‘thinning down’ of the National Curriculum in 2000 (DfEE 2000) and the introduction of the new Primary Strategy (DfES 2003), which place emphasis on creativity, suggest that a shift is occurring at least at the ‘lower’ end of the education system.

It is hard to build ICT into conventional assessment, and there is still a distrust of distance education.

(Interview 48 – Other) But it is interesting that the schools in difficult

circumstances are particularly keen – rather than shutting the door on us and saying they need to ‘stick to the textbook’. This is driving exciting and stimulating work with students, which has

a positive spin-off on learning as they feel their work is being recognised.

(Interview 17 – LEA) Referred to in New assessment (including e-portfolios): Gaps and

other problems and Key implementation issues: Support (p79)

56

A number of different e-portfolio systems were

Current assessment doesn’t target the

in use, some of which (in the schools sector)

skills that ICT facilitates – for example

had been developed speciically to support the assessment of ICT competence. The degree of

parents in Denmark have asked already

interoperability of these systems with learning

that their children be allowed to complete

platforms, MISs or indeed other e-portfolio

their exams using computers: they argue

systems – while not always clear – appeared to

that asking them to handwrite their exams

be limited. Interoperability of such systems is

is going against the way they work in

essential in order to meet the expectation of

the e-strategy 92 that learners can carry on using

their learning in schools and this is in fact

their e-portfolio throughout life. This is an area

to penalise the children. The Ministry is

that is already being explored by Becta, the DfES and the QCA 93 (see also p31 Learning

taking this on board and is looking at all