The first assessment the learner encounters is shortly after arriving on site; this is immediately after the basic training and only about three months after joining the forces. At this time these people are understandably not at their cognitive best, they have had papers to sign, decisions to make, and choices of direction and programs of learning to sign up for. The initial assessment is primarily a diagnostic assessment paper to assess the level of Number and Communication skills the learner can show at this time. On it’s completion a summative assessment is made on the results and the course selected by the assessment team will be one of two paths: Additional Learning, where the learner is taken at their own pace to bring their level of knowledge up to the level two standard, or our level two courses. At this early stage the Information Technology knowledge is not assessed at all, and no assessment information is passed on to the assessors running the learning programmes, areas which may require special assistance such as dyslexia, fear of learning or sight difficulties should be targeted for assistance at this point. This must be a major failing and causes the course loading to be completely random in regard to ability, motivation and learning.
Looking at this process from a distance it could seem to be rushed, and not in the best interest of the learner who has not time to consider the benefits or consequences of the decisions to be made, by them or indeed by the initial assessment team on the learner’s behalf. This view is supported by the fact that some learners are placed on to the course, not realising how or when they have signed up for this direction. They are also placed on the level two courses at the same time as requiring additional learning. These learners are then often in a group who have a much higher level of knowledge than them. This can lead to problems of fear, lack of motivation and often aggression from them and annoyance and frustration from others who are at a higher level and feel they are being held back.
The Key Skills qualification is in two parts; one is the exam in which Norm-referenced assessment is used, this is based on comparing the performance of the individual students in the group being tested in the period of the test window. This is often regarded as an unfair approach as it would seem to depend on the average level of knowledge of the whole group being tested, which will vary test to test instead of absolute knowledge and a true and fixed pass/fail setting.
The second part of the qualification is the portfolio, this is criterion-referenced assessment based on the set standards which must be achieved. There are no marks given with this type of assessment, the standards are met or they are not, however during the building of the portfolio the learners are provided with feedback on there progress. This is known as Formative assessment, which will correct and prevent mistakes and will help the learning process. The assessor should oversee the learning progress and step in when asked, if the learner is not able to continue, (they will not always ask for assistance) or if the learner is becoming disruptive, prompt assistance and advice at times will speed the learning. This will lead to a calm and productive session for the whole group.
This Formative assessment is the type of assessment used as the course progresses, the learners find this useful, motivational and it forms a trust between the learner and the assessor if done with care and understanding. This last point is supported when; tutors rotate from skill to skill with all three Key Skills working in the same room at the same time. A learner on IT who requires support will sometimes target a specific tutor whom they have worked with before, over the assessor in charge of the IT skill at that time. This is seen less with the other skills as learner contact is only one day. Whilst this shows a good working relationship it highlights another failing in the system, as there are no standardization meetings where the methods could be compared, with the best practice agreed and adopted by all. This would develop and improve the assessment practice, giving the learners a stable and informative environment in which to learn.
The assessment of the Information Technology group is totally different every day as the group will be made up with some lifers and some stand-downs, the split can determine how difficult the day may be. The higher number of lifers in the group the more stable the day, because these have come to know the assessors and the order and methods of the day. The stand-downs on the other hand can be aggressive and unruly. They have been pulled out of parade and told to come to the Key Skills course. Whilst these learners are in the Army and are trained to respect higher rank and command, the assessors are not the Army, and have no military authority over them.
This then is the first contact and the first assessment, this is a personal assessment or character assessment to determine how to treat and respond to these people. Following very quickly is a diagnostic assessment of their IT skills this is done by question and answer. This must be a careful and leading process, as some will try to give the impression of knowledge, in an attempt to skip over some of the learning material and on to the portfolio building too quickly. This leads to the inability to do the work and takes too much of the tutors time at the expense of those who’s need is greater. Others try to delay their posting by feigning ignorance; these too take the assessor’s time away from others. The assessor is in need of diplomacy skills in order to motivate, persuade, reason and at the last resort threaten, in order to run a successful group. The final threat is to bring in the military; this can be seen as a failure to cope on the part of the assessor and is rarely used, as it undermines the authority of the assessor.
A greater number of learners than ever are coming from abroad. These people require a more careful assessment of language, skills knowledge and temperament. Different methods are needed to include these learners fully, while they are often well educated, IT knowledge is often lacking and a reluctance to ask for help is common, sometimes caused by actual fear of how the computer works. Peer assistance often works here to build confidence in them and in their view of the assessor, peer assistance also works with language problems, the translation sometimes in both directions and this develops respect in all.
On the completion of the portfolio a summative assessment is carried out, by the teaching tutor, this uses the standards laid down by the governing body. The learner is involved in this assessment and is shown weaknesses and strengths in the work and attitude towards learning, peers and tutors, this feedback is given verbally and written in the portfolio; the portfolio is then internally verified at the place of work and then externally verified by the representative from the examining body, feedback is given from both these processes. This part of the assessment procedure does work well. The learner checks, proof-reads and corrects the work, before presenting the work to the teaching assessor for a decision, this decision can be challenged and the learner is made aware of the appeals procedure. The assessment decision is checked by the internal verifier, which in turn, is checked by the visiting external verifier. Feedback is given throughout this procedure to enable the whole process to improve and develop.
In conclusion the assessment methods used in the learning process are:
The Initial assessment and diagnostic assessment, is held on the arrival at the camp and before the start of the training. Personal assessment and character assessment, is done by the assessor on arrival at the course followed by question and answer and Formative assessment which is an important part of the assessment procedure as this is a form of checking and correcting mistakes throughout the sessions before the final completion. Criterion-referenced assessment and summative assessment come at the end of the programme, followed by feedback to the learner.
Some of the weaknesses are the poor or non existent initial assessment of the learner’s skills, incomplete initial assessment of the IT skill, and no information transfer from initial assessment to the trainers/assessors. The main weakness of the training is the mix of talent and skills, race and language. The rigid time limit set regardless of the lack of knowledge of the learner and the total disregard of prior learning, to the point of not assessing the IT skills at all, fail the program and do not promote healthy exam results.
Possible ways of improving the assessment process would be; the assessors could hold standardization meetings to improve and develop the assessment task which will benefit the learner as much as the process.
The rigid time allowed could be continuous instead of the existing broken training periods, which do not allow for progressive or complete development of the learner or programme.
The structuring of the course could be changed to allow a better selection of ability and length of time on the course, to avoid knowledge loss between days on, off and back on again, this would increase the motivation of the learner. Separate training rooms would allow better concentration and learning. The communication network throughout could be strengthened which would help those in need of support.
This critical review may have concentrated on the faults which require some change and the assessment procedures do have imperfections and indeed fail in there own respect, however they do have a positive effect and are in place to prevent failure, the success of the Key Skills programme shows that the system is in the main working very well indeed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Richard Nelson-Jones. (1996) Relating Skills; a practical guide to effective personal relationships. London: cassell
Andrew pollard. (2002) Reflective Teaching; effective and evidence-informed professional practice. London: continuum
Reece,I & Walker, s. Teaching, Training and learning; a practical guide. 5th ed.Sunderland:Business Education Publishers.
OCC SEN Handbook; (2003) Inclusive practice; Recognition Services: Office for Curriculem, Leadership and Learning.
Smith, M. K. (1999) 'The humanistic to learning', the encyclopedia of informal education, ,
. Smith, M. K. (1999) 'The cognitive orientation to learning', the encyclopedia of informal education, ,
Inspection Reports: .
