testing, testing… a, b, c: a critical appraisal of g c s e

T 0 M D A V I E S Testing, Testing . . . A, B, C: a Critical Appraisal of G C S E

Introduction The hasty conception and implementation of G C S E (Art and Design) and the National Curriculum reveal both rapid assimila- tion, and an unwavering confidence in the ‘rightness’ of each initiative by its protagonists. This paper reflects continuing research (beginning 1986) which attempts to examine the innova- tions and practices of Art and Design teachers in the face of government-led changes to the school curriculum and examina- tions. The research was a mixture of case studies, action research and participant observation-this makes conclusions difficult, but it is believed, properly reflects reaction in the art and design classroom. It expresses a concern over the methods of implement- ing changes via the teachers, and the lack of any national research on the effect of changes for assessment, criteria, and by implication, content, and the effect of these in classroom practice.

My early involvement in pressure groups for change raised doubts and questions. During 1984-86 (as a head of art and design), I was sent by my L E A to meetings and conferences about something called GCSE. It was presented as the course which would take over from the more complex dual system of o-level G C E and C S E and almost all pupils would be eligible. Learning about it, learning the vocabulary and planning to disseminate it, was invariably the purpose of these meetings. Questions about its worth or value were, or certainly seemed to be, discouraged or dismissed as confusing the issue; those with different perspectives were considered as antipathetic to progress and change. Having spent ten years up to that time running art and design courses in two inner-city London comprehensive schools I was only too aware of curricular problems. Perhaps the GCSE was the answer, certainly many seemed to think so. But I felt strongly the need to stop and look more closely at the situation-to analyse something of the nature of G C S E and the implications of its aims. Many questions relating to the pilot years of 164- (1986/7) remained unanswered and no thorough independent evaluation had either occurred or been planned.

During my research, assessment within G c s E became the major focus and N S E A D/Berol funded the project during 1988/89. Observation, interviews (teachers/pupils) and the scrutiny of projects/training methods were employed and schools in London and the West Midlands were used as case studies. Significantly, these were not schools selected as models of any sort of practice but self selecting on the basis of interest alone. Forty-six practi- tioners, from heads of department to probationary teachers,

61

Journal of Art i+ Design Education

Vol 11, No 1,1992

T O M D A V I E S A Critical Appraisal Of G C S E

Improvised creativity, which does not readily submit to predetermined assessment schemes, is in danger of becoming marginalised in favour o f . . .

62

T O M D A V I E S A Critical Appraisal

Of G C S E

63


. . . creative programmes that can be planned in strategic detail.

64


Of G C S E

65


offered their views and 27 P G C E students broadened the sample through their teaching practice schools. Action research projects, such as this, are often dismissed as unrepresentative, unreliable and most of all unscientific, yet indisputably a close association with curriculum development ensures a ‘grass roots’ credibility.

This summary of the research is organised to reveal some theoretical considerations followed by actual schools’ and teachers’ responses. It was not inevitable that the findings would reveal scepticism, yet from the conception of the research project the muted voice of protest and the lack of a balanced debate acted as a spur. Certainly prior to the study and throughout its duration, there appeared to be no overt criticism of G C S E Art and Design. Yet throughout the wider educational community, many had identified flaws in the ideology of the examination as a whole, and critics came from all shades of the political spectrum.

Warnock, for example, offered a guarded criticism, The GCSE, in short, though in many ways an exciting new development, represents an uneasy compromise. It attempts to be a proof that all children can be educated; yet it is also supposed to form a preparation for higher education to which only a few will aspire. It attempts to be a preparation for ‘A’ Level, while also satisfying the new demands for a practical education, accessible to everyone. It is doubtful whether any system could succeed in these contradictory aims. [l]

Education in England and Wales has suffered many catastrophes in recent years, but none so great as the new GCSE examination. For the first time the egalitarian mentality has been able to impose its will not only on the State schools, but on the private schools. . . The GCSE . . . with its emphasis on “course work”, “continuous assessment” and “transferable personal skills” is designed to minimise the distinction between academically gifted children and the others; Its purpose is not to discriminate but to “differentiate”, not to assess but to destroy the possibility of assessment. [2]

While Scruton of the Hillgate Group was far more pointed:

While extreme views on the GCSE as a whole were plentiful in this transitional period, there was a general feeling within each subject area, that GCSE could not be allowed to fail, and the machinery that was willing success did so unreservedly.

G c s E as a curriculum model: some theoretical considerations Within the support materials for the GCSE much is made of experiential learning, negotiation, formative assessment and the implications for pedagogy. The eclectic gathering of a set of philosophies under the umbrella of a single examination has attracted quite disparate groups who identify with some of its principles and objectives. Liberal educationalists tend towards the

66

child-centred nature of the course, while utilitarians see opportu- nity for precision, absolute standards, relevance and the promotion of visual education as useful and accountable. Sceptics may fear a growing centralism influencing content, assessment and ultimately subject specialisms. Supporters come from what have been seen as polarised positions: advocates of progressive policy who welcome child-centredness join with more reactionary forces who see potential for a differentiated art and design curriculum that defines ‘targets’ and delivers through modularised systems to particular abilities. Those generally wishing to be described as supporters tend to focus on methodology and the likely content. Sceptics are inclined to dwell on the negative aspects of ‘breadth‘, seeing a challenge and a threat to subject purity and a general drop in standards of attainment (in the case of art, in those drawing and painting techniques traditionally taught). G c s B has no ideological neatness.

Innovation is by its very nature iconoclastic and challenges the status quo, so concerned teachers need to examine the values and goals associated with the change and how change is likely to influence the system generally. The questions that are asked and the perception of the outcomes may well surface as more important than the innovation itself.

Curriculum models are usually classified, at least by theorists, into three types-content, objectives and process. For the practi- tioner these classifications often seem excessively theoretical since any educational activity must surely entail some content, some objectives (variously termed as goals, aims, ends-in-view or in- tended outcomes, etc), and as the word ‘activity’ suggests, some kind of ‘doing’ or process. But the theoretical literature is useful because behind the three models as designated, it shows an attitude towards the learning process and, indeed, a philosophy of education itself. This is not to say that there exists in reality any pure exemplar of each, nor that in reality hybridising, even according to the theoretical features, does not take place: indeed as will be seen, featuresbf each co-exist. It is the main ‘stance’ which perhaps will indicate the philosophy or ideology underpinning any hybrid.

Content Approaching the curriculum through content is traditionally repre- sented in two ways: one emphasising the teacher’s role, the other the learner’s interaction. The first could be termed the Hirstian approach to the curriculum.

The forms of knowledge are the basic articulations whereby the whole of experience has become intelligible to man, they are the fundamental achievement of mind. Forms of knowledge are based on analyses of their particular conceptual logical and methodological features. [3]

Art and Design is accommodated in Hirst’s (seven) discrete forms of knowledge but he does not look closer than aesthetic and

67


Of G C S B

TOM D A V I E S A Critical Appraisal Of G C S E

expressive relevance, Hirst’s construction of a ‘complete’ curriculum has served since 1977 [4] to influence DES/HMI publication on the common or core curriculum and lately, the National Curriculum. Considering the unspecified content element of GCSE, the very comprehensiveness implied by a content model is clearly not employed here.

Your choice of curriculum content will depend in part upon the range of assessment objectives used. (Also the aims and assessment objectives which you think important are likely to influence your choice of syllabus and between endorsed and unendorsed certification). [5]

Content here is negotiable, but the Hirstian content rationale is that there exist ‘bodies’ of knowledge external to the student, and the teacher’s job is to transmit them. The power here is with the teacher and notions of experiential, student-centred, or shared learning are not really appropriate.

A second, different, view of content was presented by Bruner, although pedagogically his own programme Man Course of Study (MACOS) [6], is arguably a process model. Bruner envisages the development of intellectual growth as a systematic and contingent interaction between the teacher and the learner; there are bodies of knowledge (content) to be transmitted, but deepening of awareness and cognitive development are the main focus.

This content model would seem to be far closer to GCSE. The GCSE units of course work, and indeed the test piece, represent content as an organising principle. The notion of knowledge and the epistemology (mainly a ‘knowing about’ definition) behind it, bear little relationship to that in conventional usage. Furthermore, the areas to be covered are so wide as to be unspecified. The choice and order of modules, projects and programmes are left to the teachers and pupils; only the number (in the case of most boards), is specified. The lack of specificity is seen as a strength rather than a weakness, the flexible framework insists only that the aims and objectives are used. While differences exist between examination boards the consensus appears to be: do your own thing, prioritise the process, and use the criteria and appropriate methods of assessment.

Process or objectives Given the ‘unspecified’ content of the framework, the crucial issue here becomes the extent to which ‘fulfilling the aims’ envisages an objectives or process curriculum model. The language of GCSE syllabuses, in using both words with almost equal frequency, could be seen to stifle their potential for conflict or achieve a consensu- ally generous interpretation.

Objective and process models are influenced by assessment systems, and here the influence of T V E L and B T E C may be considered forthright or formidable, according to your point of view. TV E I has certainly influenced the compilation of profile materials, while B T E C, with its emphasis on prespecified student/pupil be-

68

haviour, has contributed to the plethora of score chart ‘recording’. Incongruity between process and product and formative and summative assessment are apparent. The effect on G C S E may be seen where ‘objectives’ are only part of the process, and not the ‘process’ itself. The student is asked to participate in the enquiry process, goals and tasks are agreed, assessment is shared and, most of all, ways of learning are acknowledged as manifold. The ways of learning are implicit rather than explicit and cover the range from experiential to didactic. Biased in favour of participative/ active learning, GCSE could be described as a ‘classic’ process model containing elements of the Humanities Curriculum l’roject (HCP) [7], and MACOS. The emphasis would be typified as; stressing self-assessment, teacher participation in learning, and lack of predetermined outcomes.

The objectives model, strongly associated with training, does not then seem to apply to G C S E ; the pupil is not being trained, or at least not for any particular task (unless one includes transferable skills).

Is the process model more appropriate? We can ask of any process model its purpose, and all will have some idea of goals and values. In H c P, Stenhouse wished students to develop understanding of controversial human issues (defined empirically), and experience and competence in making justifiable value judgments; in M A c o S, the ‘question’ addressed was that of human-ness. What synthesis can be made to represent the ‘question’ for GCSE Art and Design?

A ‘new’ objectives model? Much has been made of the advances in teaching and learning styles;

. . . the largely beneficial influences of G c s E on methodology and the quality of pupils’ learning is clearly supported in the evidence base (HMI). [8]

The pupils are being presented as a model of what is being seen as ‘better’, more challenging and more relevant than (by implication) those who previously studied for G C E or C s E. H M I also claim that pupils are not the recipients of imposed value positions. This research, however, suggests that pupils are in a sense more depen- dent on teachers, as the necessity to decipher and deconstruct the nature of the exercise (fulfilling the requirements), is more problematic. Monitoring is primarily in the teachers’ domain and surveillance is continuous. Pupils, it may be argued, could experience less independence rather than more.

So, what sort of model is G c s E? G c S E is projected as providing life-enhancing experiences that may serve as significant in themselves or else provide the impetus for further education or indeed employment. In this description we have an objectives model of curriculum planning albeit of a ‘new’ order. However, objectives have been traditionally associated with highly specific content or particular learning behaviour, but this is not so in G c s E where the

T O M DAVIES A Critical Appraisal

Of G C S E

69

TOM D A V I E S A Critical Appraisal Of G C S E

objective assessments are applied to the tasks which have been developed out of teacherlpupil collaboration (or possibly in some cases, collusion). Thus, G C S E has the potential for progressive and traditional pedagogy: it contains a hybrid ideology. G c s E may be best described as an objectives model masquerading as process and benefiting from the associated respectability.

If the G C S E model is ambiguous, as argued, then the relationship between how attitudes are formed, skills acquired and knowledge imparted, and the focus on the ‘measurable’ for assessment purposes, could have grave consequences for the subject of art and design and education per se.

Summary of field research Do the art teachers’ responses indicate the existence of any generalisable messages that could emerge as salient? The behaviour of the sample in respect of the questions was complex and the transcripts lengthy. Participants in this study were particularly positive about the advantages of the GCSE, but remained circum- spect concerning the nature and purposes of assessments. Ele- ments emerged that suggest a double problem within the existing structures. First, that while much has been made of G C S E as a ‘process’ model the research revealed contradictions. Secondly, the National Curriculum, with its emphasis on subjects and the strengthening of summative assessment, will have powerful ramifi- cations for testing at ages 14-16, and may therefore further dismantle the ideals that informed the original concept.

Contrasting views on assessment The case study revealed that the art teachers saw a high preva- lence of paradox; formative-summative assessment; process- objectives, accountability-choice, profiling-examination.

Assessment in G C S E represents the interests of two disparate groups in education. T o please the liberal educationalist, assessment is deemed to be formative: essentially feeding back information to the learner and the teacher to maintain or improve practice. To please the conservative traditional lobby, the element of competition is served by the use of results achieved by institutions, teachers, as well as candidates. The two sides of this argument cannot be reconciled either philosophically, theoretically or indeed according to this research in practice.

Having observed over the three year period in excess of fifty lessons in the fourth and fifth year, I judge the relationships between formative and summative assessment to be far from harmonious. While they appear to co-exist it is demonstrable that whenever the summative purposes of assessment are emphasised the formative elements diminish. The summative assessment actu- ally serves to prevent the positive effects of formative assessment taking place. Thus the findings of this research material are

70

consistent with the theoretical problems of reconciling these dis- similar forms of assessment.

Formative assessment uses coursework as an indication of where things are going wrong, suggests ways of improving, and makes sure that each of the subsequent stages fully utilises the individual child’s strengths and interests. As soon as this sort of desirable intervention takes place the summative reliability of the work produced is drawn into question.

Formative assessment is primarily concerned with learning. Information related to particular performance (individual children) is fed back and both the child and the teacher build on previous lessons. The teacher (assessor) is concerned with learning details and content: learning how the child completes or fails to complete a task and, in context, awareness of the rate of the child’s learning, relative success and personal/emotional state. Both would be used to motivate, stimulate and support the learner. Formative assessment stresses the diversity of context, summative assessment serves to de-contextualise. It takes no account of the learner’s performance related to previous knowledge and experience. The findings of this research indicate that when and where a particular skill was assessed is always important, and that the claimed neutrality of summative assessment is spurious.

The pedagogic strength of a formative input (borne of inter- active practice) is put at risk by the demands within G c s E and the National Curriculum to move progressively away from the notion of schools as establishments of learning to institutions for grading, training and selection. There is potential tension between coursework assessment and the duality of formative and summative modes, and this tension is embedded in the most recent arrangements for the National Curriculum [9].

The research encouraged teachers and pupils to articulate their views on assessment, as the relationship and match with content/ style seemed to be significant. The teacher replies reflected the importance of conformity and motivation, whereas the replies of the pupils fell into a number of categories, and most had strong opinions about assessment. The increased demands for course work had served to establish group identities within most fourth and fifth year classrooms. While not totally understanding the emphasis on criteria referencing and process, those pupils who worked industriously and adopted an earnest approach to course work tended to do well overall (in terms of the continual assessment schemes), sometimes with eflm compensating for poor attainment. Most of these pupils saw value in the difficult task of recording and commenting on their own progress.

The largest number (what could be termed the ‘average’) appeared to require (if not always receive), a great deal of the teacher’s help. A third group, occasionally close to a third of the classroom population, adopted distracting often anti-social behaviour. While the percentage mix of the industrious, obse- quious and the refusers varied enormously, the fact that each art class tended to comprise all three indicated the difficulties in

71


Of G C S E


establishing practices that would lead to self-directed, autonomous study. What counted as self-directed study was occasionally attri- buted to individuals adopting avoidance tactics rather than any- thing more purposeful.

General responses to G c s E Profiling and its relationship to examination represents a major polemic; it is quite possible that both will continue in some form with the best features of each presented for consideration. Teachers were understandably ambivalent about this issue and felt that some unaided test was important. While seeing the coursework assessment as valuable, they felt that present arrangements did not allow for adequate objectivity and that the grades ac- credited to particular pupils were such a complex array of aggre- gated judgments that few moderators seemed capable of ‘seeing the wood for the trees’. Significantly, respondents were inclined to talk more about the controlled test than the workload of coursework assessment, presumably because they felt more secure/familiar with the system. The relevance of the test, the degree to which it was unaided and the stimulus material were the factors that surfaced most frequently in discussion.

The assessment records tended to be a little inward looking, relying totally on individuals in schools pioneering their own versions around subject criteria. Imposing a structure on the panoply of experience described as art and design, proved time consuming and few departments retained their system beyond the first year. As flaws in the assessment schemes became obvious, so changes took place with a resulting investment of time and energy. Having modified internal assessment arrangements respondents were inclined to defend them vehemently anticipating criticism or unwelcome probing. Various models were justified with reference to the fact that the final grade would not necessarily be the sum of the totals recorded. These records existed in many schools as additional information, and during final assessments their use seemed peripheral. To a large extent colleagues appeared to be victims of their own propaganda spending considerable amounts of time compiling data that had limited direct usefulness-it tended to confirm what was already apparent. There appeared to be no simple correlation between performance and assessments, and individual candidates’ coursework revealed the pedagogic machi- nations.

Most teachers seemed to think that criterion referencing as a discrete or desirable mechanism was fundamentally flawed and drew attention to multiple interpretation. Vague, ambiguous criteria were considered less than helpful; simple criteria enabled teachers to cope with pupil numbers and focus on specific areas of the syllabus. Teachers felt that their records revealed n m rgm- enced codes and that comparison rather than being undesirable was essential.

Grade descriptions as harbingers of criterion referencing seemed

72

to support particular types of work rather than a standard of attainment. Criteria for the more complex operations cannot be written down and relate to issues (about what counts as success- ful) that are ideologically deep-seated. A further factor concerning the need for pre-stated criteria before making judgment was raised. All the pupils in the study could apply judgment to unfamiliar imagedobjects (as was evident by their responses to the artistsldesigners in-residence). Their opinions were based on existing experience around qualities discoverable by prolonged encounter or articulated by the artist hedhimself. All art work and its means of production are densely complex and make the business of definition and grade statements contestable. This is not because all judgments are subjective rather than objective, it is that objectivity itself, when applied to art and design, is multi- layered.

While being aware that the research cannot claim to be nationally representative, it does suggest that teachers are far more articulate now than they were prior to the introduction of G c s E, but that the classroom practices do not support the argument that GCSE has heralded a fundamental change. For the majority of pupils teaching and learning styles in the examination years have remained much the same. There is a stronger emphasis on those elements/compo- nents of art and design activity that are most susceptible to measurement eg: analytical drawing, technical processes, and sim- plistic models of critical studies. In order to manage (in what has been described as a formula approach) teachers have adopted, to a large extent, coping strategies that serve to simplify expectations. Most teachers, and indeed pupils, seemed to be aware of a growing orthodoxy in what was being produced, but reasoned that time necessitated certain expediencies.

Over the past three years a decline is discernible in open experimentation; pupils have significantly less time to learn through failure. Even within the departments that demonstrated an extremely high standard of display work, sketch books, and ‘folios, a dominant style was found that for the most part served the interests of the collective view rather than the individual child. Speaking with pupils independently revealed that they were of the opinion that all work was assessable with the inevitable corollary that all time was precious. The implication of ‘playing safe’ was clear.

Consciousness of the need for three-dimensional work was slightly improved even if little was undertaken. Design related activities were alarmingly impoverished, partly due to the de- valued status of collaborative work all the work that had been identified as examinable was individual. The design process is of its very nature a shared experience with the best solutions often representing a composite of views, opinions and skills. The syllabus material for art and design, should acknowledge that the omission of collaborative work serves to arrest, if not erode, this vital dimension.

While art and design teachers and others may claim to have

73


Of G C S E


improved standards, in that the statistical data produced by examination boards demonstrate a greater yield of higher grades, there is a problem because the grades cannot simply be compared with previous o-level and c s E grades. Nor can they easily be compared to earlier G c s E years as evidence or proof of a growing improve- ment as the negotiation could be seen as self-interested. However, more pupils are taking and obtaining certificates in art and design than before, yet the vast majority of departments, according to the data, have fewer teachers than ten years earlier. Demographic trends notwithstanding it seemed somehow incongruous that fewer teachers were generating more favourable examination results within a system that, theoretically, required greater sensitivity and judgment. Greater numbers quite simply meant bigger classes.

The implications for choice with increasing demands for accountability is another incongruity. In many schools the illusion of change was related to the illusion of choice, and while a certain latitude existed in the realms of ‘ideas’, materials and equipment were both limited and problematic. Many aphorisms relating to resources and their accessibility were recorded; teachers felt that books, slides and videos continued to be scarce. Computers had begun to emerge in the sample departments by late 1989, but this added provision must be considered alongside an overall reduction in capitation and visits to art galleries and museums.

The incongruity between choice and accountability seemed to emphasise the latter. Accountability was seen more as an instru- ment of control than professional dialogue, but each teacher had devised systems for monitoring pupils’ progress within frame- works that were generally considered humane. However, the ten- dency was to see the benefits in terms of authority, formality and contractual responsibility rather than profesional, shared, or indeed moral responsibility. Teachers acknowledged that the examination had a double function, and were in no doubt that individual staff could be assessed through the work on their walls. Con- versely, pupils experienced difficulty understanding criteria, not through the language necessarily, but the nuance and subtlety of interpretation. The consensus view of teachers seemed to be that the anti-skills paradigm continues and that covert messages sug- gested that skills needed to be discovered rather than taught. For those wishing to see standardised practice, little comfort could be taken from David Marjoram, H M I, speaking to Birmingham P G c E students:

You mustn’t look for some sort of national norm, you have to sort out your own philosophy; what is possible to teach in your school, bearing in mind the range of children, amount of resources you’ve got and all those sorts of things, and be able to articulate that and justify i t . . . all you can do is improve your own situation!

Drawing conclusions on standardised or varied practice is difficult, schools and their teachers have experienced all manner of changes both in attitude and policy, and an increasing number of teachers felt that G c s E would be remembered as a short departure

74

from a long tradition of summative testing and crude forms of differentiation.

Conclusions Within the ‘cult of efficiency’ and an educational system that is curriculum rather than child-centred, we must not lose sight of the responsibility we have to retain or develop courses that support sensitive, informed judgment. I doubt whether teachers have lost sight of this, but the continuing questions on the relative merits of formative and summative assessment, with their implications of process and outcome evaluation and the uneasy relationship between profiling and examination reflect a deeper uncertainty. The lack of research to identify effects of change (in the course of efficacy) can lead to deliberate and considered returns to earlier models of assessment, or simple reversion to old habits. For example, most teachers appear to assess using a range of norms based on past experience. Equally lack of research will obscure the effects of experimentation in favour of ‘playing safe’ and its influence on the type and range of content and medium. The examination results themselves are used as self-validation instead of any independent research-a dangerous pathway for a new system with superficial and deep-seated divisions.

These views identified from the collective opinion of colleagues in the field are presented here as knowledge-in-the-making, and the final rider to this report is a question that encapsulates most of the problems identified. Has G C S E in its attempt to measure/assess all the child’s experience, made Art and Design an examination course, rather than a course that happens to have an examination?

Notes and references WARNOCK, M. (1989) A Common Policy for Education, Oxford, Oxford University Press. SCRUTON, R. (1986) The Times, 16 November 1986. HIRST, P. & PETERS, R. (1970) The Logic of Education. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul; HIRST, P. (1974) Knowledge and Curricu- lum. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. H M I ( 1977) Curriculum 11 -1 6; D E s ( 1979) Local Authority Arrange- ments fm the School Curriculum; H M I (1979) Aspects of Seconday Education; D E s (1 980) A Framework for the School Cum’culum; H M I (1980) A View of the Curriculum; DES (1981) The School Cunicu- lum; D E s ( 1985) Better Schools. (1986) GCSE: Arz and Design: a Guidefor Teachers. Rainbow Series (issued for all subjects as training guides and INSET manuals) pp.

BRUNER, J. (1973) The Relewance of Education. New York, Norton. Man: a Course of Study examplifies an approach through content and is described by JENKINS, D. in: (1975) Curriculum Design and Devel- opments. Open University Course E203, Units 14-15, pp. 55-100. STENHOUSE, L. (1980) Curriculum Research and Development in Action, pp. 280-83. H M I (1989) GCSE Monitoring (Art and Design). London, HMSO. D E S (1989) From Policy to Practice: National Curriculum. London, HMSO paras 6.1, 3, 7,8, 12.

75

5-10, 12-15.


Of GCSE

testing, testing… a, b, c: a critical appraisal of g c s e

Documents