Workshops Birmingham May 15th

1. Future of Assessment
There was broad support from the majority of delegates, for the changes to the examination system that lie ahead. Many delegates welcomed the proposed changes as a step in the right direction. However there were a number of issues raised that need to be addressed. In no particular order these were:

• Impact on teaching and learning styles, particularly the introduction of the extended project and the move into vocational areas. There was a request for clearer communications and a supported programme of training.
• There were concerns about assessment of the vocational elements in the new diplomas and whether or not universities would see these as valid. There was a danger of the diploma creating a two-tier system
• There were a number of budgetary issues raised, relating to both resources and training.
• The IEA needs to take a clear stance on the proposed changes.

2. E-Assessment and E-Marking
There was a mixed reaction to the rapid developments taking place in this area. On the one hand it was felt that e-assessment and e-marking had clear and demonstrable benefits to both learners and centres. There are also a number of benefits to assessors, since much of the administrative drudgery is taken out of the system by the machinery. However, it was also felt that e-marking poses problems for assessors in that it can become a monotonous way to mark. The necessary hardware was often expensive to install and had to be borne by the assessors. It was felt that the technology must be the servant of the assessment system and not its master.

Concerns expressed, in no particular order were:

• Exams that are assessed on line must be fit for purpose. Many noted a change in the style of question asked, so that it could be added to the suite of questions that may be assessed electronically.
• There were concerns over funding and equitable access to hardware of a similar standard for all candidates, regardless of ethnicity or background. There was also a concern about the requirements to fulfil the Disability Discrimination Act and allow access arrangements to those candidates who need them.
• There were concerns over secure access in centres and access to a reliable system of computers. Validity was also raised as an issue, as was security, effective invigilation and the need for rigour.
• A planned and timed roll out of such assessment was felt to be important, with training and resource seen key issues.
• Delegates questioned the appropriateness of Ofsted judgements in a personalised lesson. For example, would the present three-part structure be appropriate for the lesson that had maybe 20 pupils all working at different levels?
• Delegates urged the legislators to consider a move towards a balanced learning experience: books, computers and pens.
• The IEA could have a role in effecting the speed and quality of the changes ahead.

3. Professional support
The professional support of the IEA was broadly welcomed as a development whose time had come. Many of the products and services requested, such as a forum area, professional training, a termly magazine, national conferences and the opportunities to network in regions have already been anticipated.

However, there were further issues raised which were, again in no particular order:

• The proposed fee structure was challenged by some.
• The IEA must develop an inclusive vocabulary.
• Pension rights for external assessors and markers was a contentious issue.
• Incentives for the young must be provided.
• Involvement with the CEM Centre should be encouraged.
• Representatives from overseas should be welcomed, if the globalisation of assessment was made possible by the developments in technology.
• Independence was felt to be an important element.
• Training opportunities were welcomed by all.

G. Herbert
16/05/06