Workshops London May 13th

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:

• Information about the changes needs to come early so that centres can plan for the introduction of new regimes in a timely way. Resources and training in a variety of formats need to be made available. The changes must be seen as a part of teaching and learning and not another bolt on to the end of the learning process.
• There were a number of concerns relating to changes to coursework .On the one hand there was agreement about the risk of plagiarism, the support given to candidates by affluent parents and the gender bias that course work appears to promote. However, there were concerns about dropping coursework altogether, since it provided opportunities to test higher level skills not possible in a timed test. Coursework needs to be balanced, as does the workload implications for both candidate and teacher. Above all it was recommended that coursework be seen as fit for purpose. It was felt by many that assessment must also focus on process rather than product.
• New models of assessment need to be introduced to support the introduction of functional ski8lls. The ICT skills of the teaching force need to be developed so that all staff can contribute to an individual candidate's skills.

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. A change in the style of question asked was noted by many, 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 as key issues.

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. These are available on-line at www.ioea.org.uk. 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.

G. Herbert
14/05/06