A chara, – Applied to the assessment of student learning, the concepts of consistency and standards are undeniably complex. Contrary to what Dr Greg Foley suggests (September 5th), I too am dubious about the value of the "learning outcomes approach", generally known as objectives-based education. This approach has been discredited in Australia, South Africa and other countries for some of the reasons he has identified. However, such unease does not mean that we should settle for a status quo that is, by Dr Foley's own admission, "inherently fuzzy".
Achievement standards that provide clear and consistent criteria against which student achievement is evaluated are the alternative of choice in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the US and Germany. Such standards identify the differentiated levels at which students demonstrate knowledge, understanding, skills and generic competences requiring higher-order thinking. Their use advances deep learning by enabling assessment for, as well as of, learning.
The caveat is that, in the absence of strong, informed leadership, their application can be undermined by market values.
Dr Foley ponders the purpose of second-level education. In a country that eschews philosophical discussions around education, and where students define their achievement in terms of CAO points, this is indeed an important question.
His response, however, simply feeds into the prevailing utilitarian attitude by adopting a “banking” approach to schooling where students “acquire a wide body of knowledge” without reference to “real-world problems” and are prepared for further and higher education.
While the Leaving Cert may indeed be “fit for purpose” against such criteria, the process of education is thankfully more complex and holistic.
Like Dr Foley, I also believe that end-of-year exams play a valuable role in the assessment of learning. This does not, however, preclude the use of other appropriate modes of assessment.
Our current formulaic approach to these exams encourages “coaching”, rewards rote learning and lacks creativity. This results in classroom practices that are overly dependent on “sample” and past exam papers, while examiners who deviate from set patterns are excoriated in the media and grades are massaged in response.
While the challenges are difficult, taking refuge in the status quo will change nothing. – Is mise,
Prof JIM GLEESON,
Australian Catholic
University,
Brisbane,
Australia.