New research by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) has found that while students “marginally preferred” the approach taken to assessment in 2021 over the return to exams in 2022, teachers and lecturers “overwhelmingly reported that they preferred the 2022 approach”.
The research carried out by the SQA and published today included a survey of around 2,000 students and 1,000 practitioners.
It found that students who had sat qualifications in both 2020-21 and 2021-22 preferred the approach taken when the exams were cancelled as a result of Covid and teachers were responsible for determining their grades.
In total, 43 per cent said they preferred the way they were assessed in 2020-21, as compared to 38 per cent who preferred the return to external exams in 2021-22. Students also found the return to external exams more stressful.
However, “by a wide margin”, teachers and lecturers reported preferring the way students were assessed in 2021-22, when external exams returned for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic, rather than in 2020-21 when teachers were responsible for grading students.
In total, 73 per cent of teachers and lecturers preferred the 2021-22 approach, compared to 18 per cent who preferred the 2020-21 approach.
Increased workload was a major factor for teachers: the SQA analysis of the 2020-21 alternative certification model published last year found that the changes to assessment were “almost unmanageable” for staff and some even considered leaving the profession.
But today’s report says this was not the only reason practitioners preferred the 2021-22 approach and - other than workload - “most themes identified in support of the 2021-22 approach relate to the importance of a credible, reliable, and impartial assessment for all learners”.
The report says: “In general, practitioners thought that the grades awarded in 2021-22 were more credible than those awarded in 2020-21, but less credible than those awarded in 2018-19: 90 per cent of practitioners said that 2018-19 grades were very credible or credible, compared to 34 per cent who said the same about 2020-21 grades and 70 per cent who said the same about 2021-22 grades”.
The report adds: “It is clear from this evaluation that, in the shorter term, stakeholders from across the education system, on the whole, welcomed the return to formal national assessments in 2022 and the certainty associated with a well-understood, consistent, and reliable approach.”
The SQA says it carried out the evaluation “to provide the system with a record of how the 2022 approach worked in practice” and also to “help to generate discussion about key topics, including the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to assessment”.
The way students are assessed in senior secondary is under the microscope in Scotland, with the final report of the Hayward review of assessment and qualifications expected this month.
The interim Hayward report was published in March. It called for “a better balance between internal evidence and external examination” in national qualifications and for a Scottish Diploma of Achievement to be introduced “to allow evidence of learner achievements to be gathered in a broader range of areas than is currently the case”.
The impact that any increase in “internal evidence” is likely to have on teacher workload was recognised in the report, which said “adding more to the workload of teachers and others is not sustainable” and that “decisions must be taken to identify what teachers stop doing to allow space for new practices to evolve”.
However, the SQA research published today also raises the issue of how well teachers understand the national standards required in SQA assessments.
In relation to the 2022 appeals process - which was open to students who received a lower final grade than their predicted grade - the research says “many candidates were let down by evidence that was not consistent with the national standard”.
The report adds: “A large number of respondents [to the SQA senior appointees and qualifications teams survey] recognised a lack of consistency across the evidence submitted to support appeals. Some noted examples of centres setting assessments that were insufficiently challenging, marking leniently, or applying low cut-offs (or a combination of these). An invalid assessment, therefore, reduced the likelihood of a successful appeal, and this created unfairness for learners.”
Overall, less than half (37 per cent) of all SQA senior appointees and qualifications team members surveyed agreed that appeals evidence was, in general, valid and reliable and only half (51 per cent) agreed the national standard was consistently understood and interpreted by teachers and lecturers in 2021-22.
However, the report highlights that teachers and lecturers are “rarely allocated time for engaging with Understanding Standards materials or events” and “centres rarely have an opportunity to meet internally or externally to discuss candidate work or share practice”. It also says the SQA senior appointees and qualifications team members surveyed ”firmly believed that most centres did the best they could in the circumstances”.
The research published today by the SQA can be accessed here.
