SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 25
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                              Assessment




                                 Survival of the Fittest for Purpose?
                                                                                	
  
         Exploring	
  reliability	
  and	
  validity	
  in	
  criterion-­‐related	
  assessment	
  of	
  
        the	
  IB	
  Middle	
  Years	
  Programme	
  sciences	
  as	
  it	
  moves	
  into	
  the	
  Next	
  
                                                                      Chapter.	
  	
  
                                                                                	
  

                                                                                	
  
                                                             Stephen	
  Taylor	
  
                                              MA	
  International	
  Education	
  
                                                            University	
  of	
  Bath	
  
                                                          (@IBiologyStephen)	
  
	
  
	
  
       This	
  assignment	
  was	
  submitted	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  my	
  MA	
  coursework	
  in	
  February	
  2012.	
  It	
  is	
  uploaded	
  here	
  
       (with	
  permission)	
  to	
  be	
  included	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  my	
  professional	
  development	
  and	
  reflective	
  portfolio	
  at	
  
                                                             is.gd/IBiologyReflections.	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                     Assessment

                                                                   Introduction	
  
The	
  International	
  Baccalaureate’s	
  Middle	
  Years	
  Programme	
  (MYP)	
  is	
  going	
  through	
  an	
  
exciting	
  period	
  of	
  reinvention.	
  Dubbed	
  “MYP:	
  The	
  Next	
  Chapter,”	
  this	
  programme	
  overhaul	
  
will	
  affect	
  all	
  MYP	
  teachers,	
  students	
  and	
  school	
  leaders	
  over	
  the	
  coming	
  years	
  (IB,	
  2011a).	
  
The	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  breaks	
  from	
  the	
  usual	
  curriculum	
  review	
  cycle,	
  which	
  runs	
  on	
  a	
  per-­‐
subject	
  group	
  basis,	
  and	
  will	
  result	
  in	
  new	
  subject	
  guides,	
  assessment	
  criteria	
  and	
  practices	
  
being	
  published	
  for	
  every	
  subject	
  simultaneously.	
  	
  Due	
  to	
  be	
  officially	
  launched	
  in	
  2014,	
  
subject	
  and	
  assessment	
  reviews	
  and	
  trials	
  are	
  currently	
  ongoing	
  in	
  schools	
  around	
  the	
  globe.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  this	
  essay,	
  I	
  will	
  explore	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  key	
  changes	
  proposed	
  under	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  
and	
  their	
  implications,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability,	
  of	
  assessment	
  of	
  the	
  sciences.	
  I	
  will	
  
attempt	
  to	
  evaluate	
  these	
  proposals	
  and	
  make	
  recommendations	
  for	
  teachers	
  and	
  the	
  IB	
  on	
  
steps	
  that	
  may	
  make	
  for	
  a	
  smoother	
  transition	
  from	
  principles	
  into	
  practice.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Structure	
  and	
  assessment	
  of	
  the	
  IB	
  Middle	
  Years	
  Programme	
  
The	
  IB	
  MYP	
  is	
  a	
  rapidly	
  growing	
  educational	
  framework	
  for	
  middle	
  school-­‐aged	
  students	
  
(11-­‐16	
  years	
  of	
  age).	
  With	
  its	
  roots	
  as	
  a	
  ‘pre-­‐IB’	
  programme	
  in	
  Africa	
  in	
  the	
  1980’s,	
  it	
  has	
  
developed	
  into	
  a	
  four	
  or	
  five-­‐year	
  programme,	
  acting	
  not	
  only	
  as	
  a	
  precursor	
  to	
  the	
  Diploma	
  
Programme	
  (its	
  original	
  intended	
  purpose),	
  but	
  also	
  as	
  an	
  interface	
  with	
  the	
  Primary	
  Years	
  
Programme.	
  (Nicolson	
  &	
  Hannah,	
  2010).	
  The	
  holistic	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  programme	
  is	
  intended	
  
to	
  develop	
  both	
  concepts	
  and	
  skills	
  in	
  its	
  learners,	
  developing	
  not	
  only	
  knowledge	
  and	
  
understanding	
  of	
  the	
  eight	
  subject	
  groups,	
  but	
  
also	
  allowing	
  students	
  to	
  become	
  versed	
  in	
  the	
  
learning	
  skills	
  required	
  to	
  be	
  successful	
  in	
  the	
  
IB	
  Diploma,	
  university	
  and	
  beyond.	
  (Nicolson	
  &	
  
Hannah,	
  2010).	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  core	
  of	
  the	
  MYP	
  is	
  similar	
  in	
  nature	
  to	
  that	
  
of	
  the	
  Diploma	
  Programme,	
  with	
  the	
  IB’s	
  
Learner	
  Profile	
  focusing	
  on	
  the	
  desired	
  
attributes	
  of	
  learners.	
  The	
  five	
  Areas	
  of	
  
                                                                                      Figure	
  1:	
  The	
  current	
  MYP	
  model.	
  Taken	
  from	
  A	
  History	
  of	
  the	
  
interaction	
  form	
  contexts	
  for	
  learning	
  within	
                        Middle	
  Years	
  Programme	
  (Appendix)	
  (Nicolson	
  &	
  Hannah,	
  2010)	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                   Assessment

the	
  curriculum.	
  Community	
  and	
  service	
  is	
  analogous	
  to	
  the	
  Creativity,	
  action	
  and	
  service	
  
component	
  of	
  the	
  Diploma	
  Programme.	
  Approaches	
  to	
  learning,	
  another	
  Area	
  of	
  interaction,	
  
highlights	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  study	
  and	
  research	
  skills	
  (IB,	
  2009)	
  and	
  also	
  allows	
  for	
  some	
  
introduction	
  to	
  the	
  Theory	
  of	
  knowledge	
  component	
  of	
  the	
  Diploma	
  Programme	
  (Nicolson	
  
&	
  Hannah,	
  2010).	
  A	
  culminating,	
  student-­‐directed	
  task,	
  the	
  Personal	
  Project,	
  aims	
  to	
  
facilitate	
  student	
  exploration	
  in	
  a	
  similar	
  way	
  to	
  the	
  Diploma	
  Programme’s	
  Extended	
  Essay.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Growth	
  and	
  development	
  in	
  the	
  MYP:	
  Why	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter?	
  
From	
  407	
  schools	
  running	
  the	
  MYP	
  in	
  2007,	
  there	
  are	
  now	
  729	
  MYP	
  schools	
  worldwide	
  (IB,	
  
2011a,	
  p.4).	
  This	
  rapid	
  growth	
  in	
  the	
  programme	
  could	
  be	
  due	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  factors,	
  such	
  as	
  
a	
  greater	
  demand	
  for	
  international	
  education	
  in	
  developed	
  and	
  developing	
  nations	
  and	
  a	
  
increasing	
  ‘brand	
  recognition’	
  of	
  the	
  International	
  Baccalaureate	
  in	
  the	
  education	
  sector.	
  
The	
  International	
  Baccalaureate	
  Organisation	
  has	
  three	
  regions.	
  The	
  Americas	
  (IBA)	
  
encompasses	
  the	
  USA,	
  Canada	
  and	
  South	
  America	
  and	
  in	
  recent	
  years	
  has	
  been	
  the	
  fastest-­‐
growing	
  market,	
  with	
  over	
  71%	
  of	
  IB	
  schools	
  running	
  the	
  MYP	
  (IB,	
  2011a,	
  p.6).	
  Growth	
  is	
  
slower	
  but	
  steady	
  in	
  the	
  IB’s	
  other	
  two	
  regions,	
  Africa,	
  Europe	
  and	
  the	
  Middle	
  East	
  (IBAEM),	
  
and	
  Asia-­‐Pacific	
  (IBAP).	
  	
  
	
  
Despite	
  this	
  growth	
  in	
  the	
  MYP,	
  the	
  proportion	
  of	
  schools	
  choosing	
  to	
  moderate	
  their	
  
assessment	
  is	
  decreasing:	
  from	
  38.8%	
  (155/407	
  schools)	
  of	
  June-­‐session	
  schools	
  registering	
  
candidates	
  for	
  moderation	
  in	
  2007	
  to	
  just	
  22.91%	
  (167/729	
  schools)	
  in	
  2011	
  (IB,	
  2011a).	
  
Although	
  in	
  real	
  terms	
  this	
  represents	
  a	
  small	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  schools	
  choosing	
  to	
  
have	
  their	
  assessments	
  moderated,	
  it	
  does	
  raise	
  questions	
  of	
  the	
  reliability	
  of	
  the	
  grades	
  
given	
  to	
  students	
  in	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  schools.	
  As	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  five-­‐year	
  programme	
  evaluation	
  
process,	
  schools	
  which	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  their	
  grades	
  formally	
  moderated	
  are	
  required	
  to	
  submit	
  
some	
  samples	
  of	
  assessed	
  final-­‐year	
  work	
  for	
  monitoring,	
  a	
  version	
  of	
  moderation	
  which	
  
provides	
  feedback	
  on	
  assessment	
  without	
  affecting	
  grades	
  awarded	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.49).	
  	
  
	
  
This	
  low	
  uptake	
  of	
  moderation	
  and	
  potential	
  loophole	
  in	
  quality	
  control	
  leaves	
  the	
  MYP	
  in	
  
an	
  interesting	
  position	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  reliability,	
  recognition	
  and	
  competition.	
  Globally	
  it	
  is	
  
growing	
  and	
  becoming	
  the	
  choice	
  of	
  international	
  schools	
  and	
  local	
  schools	
  aiming	
  to	
  
‘internationalise’	
  their	
  learning.	
  	
  The	
  IB	
  Diploma	
  is	
  a	
  well-­‐established	
  programme	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                       Assessment

internationally,	
  with	
  a	
  current	
  tally	
  of	
  2,313	
  schools	
  offering	
  the	
  programme	
  (IB,	
  2012).	
  
However,	
  of	
  these	
  schools,	
  just	
  212	
  offer	
  the	
  MYP	
  preceding	
  the	
  Diploma	
  Programme	
  (IB,	
  
2012).	
  Of	
  course,	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  DP-­‐only	
  schools	
  will	
  be	
  similar	
  to	
  sixth-­‐form	
  colleges	
  with	
  an	
  
exclusively	
  16-­‐19	
  student	
  body,	
  but	
  there	
  is	
  still	
  some	
  shortfall	
  with	
  its	
  leading	
  competitor,	
  
the	
  IGCSE.	
  	
  
	
  
Boasting	
  over	
  9,000	
  schools	
  enrolled	
  internationally	
  (CIE,	
  2011),	
  the	
  Cambridge	
  
International	
  GCSE	
  is	
  often	
  found	
  as	
  the	
  ‘pre-­‐IB’	
  qualification	
  in	
  international	
  schools	
  that	
  
offer	
  the	
  Diploma	
  but	
  not	
  MYP.	
  	
  The	
  IGCSE	
  is	
  closely	
  based	
  on	
  England’s	
  GCSE,	
  developed	
  in	
  
1988	
  as	
  a	
  broader	
  style	
  of	
  assessment	
  for	
  Key	
  Stage	
  4	
  in	
  the	
  UK	
  than	
  the	
  incumbent	
  O-­‐
Levels	
  system	
  (Bishop	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999).	
  Originally	
  the	
  GCSE,	
  like	
  the	
  MYP,	
  was	
  intended	
  to	
  go	
  
beyond	
  selection	
  and	
  summative	
  assessment	
  of	
  content,	
  to	
  also	
  “embrace	
  the	
  broader	
  
notion	
  of	
  assessment,	
  which	
  includes	
  the	
  following:	
  
          •        a	
  system	
  which	
  tests	
  a	
  balance	
  of	
  knowledge,	
  understanding	
  and	
  skills;	
  this	
  
                   system	
  employs	
  different	
  types	
  of	
  assessment	
  within	
  the	
  courses	
  of	
  study	
  which	
  
                   reflects	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  styles	
  of	
  teaching	
  and	
  learning;	
  	
  
          •        challenging	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  abilities	
  of	
  pupils	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  key	
  stage	
  4;	
  	
  
          •        being	
  relevant	
  to	
  everyday	
  life.”	
  (Bishop	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999)	
  
	
  
In	
  their	
  paper	
  Users’	
  perceptions	
  of	
  the	
  GCSE,	
  Bishop,	
  Black,	
  Martin	
  and	
  Thompson	
  (1999)	
  
conclude	
  that	
  “it	
  must	
  be	
  recognized	
  that	
  the	
  [GCSE]	
  examination	
  cannot	
  perform	
  
concurrently	
  all	
  functions	
  that	
  users	
  are	
  claiming	
  for	
  it.”	
  These	
  sentiments	
  could	
  well	
  be	
  
shared	
  of	
  the	
  MYP	
  in	
  its	
  current	
  form:	
  philosophically	
  sound	
  and	
  in-­‐tune	
  with	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  
international	
  education,	
  but	
  with	
  a	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  goals,	
  assessment	
  methods	
  and	
  low	
  
moderation	
  somewhat	
  vulnerable	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability.	
  As	
  Hayden	
  and	
  
Thompson	
  (2011,	
  p.17),	
  conclude:	
  “	
  [for	
  some]	
  …the	
  absence	
  of	
  external	
  external	
  
examination	
  leading	
  to	
  an	
  externally-­‐awarded	
  certificate	
  at	
  age	
  16	
  is	
  anathema.”	
  
	
  
While	
  discussions	
  continue	
  over	
  UK	
  schools	
  moving	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  GCSE	
  and	
  OFQUAL	
  
questions	
  over	
  standards	
  following	
  recent	
  revisions	
  (Morrison,	
  2009),	
  the	
  IB	
  are	
  working	
  on	
  
their	
  next	
  incarnation	
  of	
  the	
  MYP:	
  The	
  Next	
  Chapter.	
  Fundamentally,	
  The	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  
involves	
  more	
  streamlined,	
  structured	
  and	
  potentially	
  more	
  valid	
  and	
  reliable	
  assessment	
  of	
  
student	
  learning.	
  	
  
	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                             Assessment

One	
  justification	
  for	
  the	
  move	
  to	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  and	
  its	
  associated	
  modes	
  of	
  assessment	
  
is	
  for	
  the	
  MYP	
  to	
  gain	
  accreditation	
  in	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  countries	
  in	
  which	
  it	
  is	
  being	
  
implemented.	
  In	
  a	
  recent	
  email	
  exchange	
  Malcolm	
  Nicolson,	
  the	
  Head	
  of	
  MYP	
  Programme	
  
Development,	
  stated,	
  “We	
  will	
  be	
  looking	
  at	
  accreditation	
  standards	
  globally	
  –	
  so	
  looking	
  at	
  
USA,	
  Australia,	
  Canada,	
  Netherlands,	
  Germany,	
  Japan	
  and	
  many	
  others.	
  The	
  UK	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  
countries	
  will	
  aim	
  to	
  satisfy.”	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  satisfy	
  the	
  UK,	
  the	
  MYP	
  must	
  adhere	
  to	
  the	
  
assessment	
  principles	
  laid	
  out	
  by	
  OFQUAL,	
  the	
  same	
  body	
  which	
  currently	
  accredits	
  the	
  
IGCSE,	
  GCSE	
  and	
  A-­‐Level	
  qualifications,	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  IB’s	
  own	
  Diploma	
  Programme.	
  
	
  
Condition	
  E4.2	
  of	
  the	
  OFQUAL	
  document	
  General	
  Conditions	
  of	
  Recognition,	
  states	
  that:	
  	
  
            “…In	
  designing	
  such	
  an	
  assessment,	
  an	
  awarding	
  organization	
  must	
  […]	
  ensure	
  that	
  
            the	
  assessment	
  is:	
  fit	
  for	
  purpose,	
  […]	
  allows	
  each	
  Learner	
  to	
  generate	
  evidence	
  
            which	
  can	
  be	
  Authenticated,	
  [and	
  which]	
  allows	
  Assessors	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  differentiate	
  
            accurately	
  and	
  consistently	
  between	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  attainments	
  of	
  Learners.”	
  
                                                                                                               	
  (OFQUAL,	
  2011,	
  p.44)	
  
	
  
Inherently	
  the	
  recognition	
  sought	
  by	
  the	
  MYP	
  is	
  an	
  issue	
  of	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability	
  in	
  
assessment.	
  Here	
  we	
  can	
  try	
  to	
  evaluate	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  model	
  of	
  the	
  
MYP	
  and	
  look	
  at	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  key	
  proposals	
  for	
  change	
  under	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
What	
  makes	
  for	
  valid	
  and	
  reliable	
  assessment?	
  
When	
  teaching	
  my	
  own	
  science	
  classes	
  I	
  often	
  ask	
  my	
  students	
  two	
  questions	
  when	
  they	
  
are	
  designing,	
  carrying	
  out	
  and	
  evaluating	
  lab	
  work	
  and	
  processing	
  their	
  results.	
  The	
  first	
  is	
  
“how	
  do	
  you	
  know	
  your	
  method	
  is	
  allowing	
  you	
  to	
  address	
  your	
  research	
  question?”	
  The	
  
second	
  is	
  “how	
  do	
  you	
  know	
  you	
  can	
  rely	
  on	
  your	
  results?”	
  
	
  
Moss	
  et.	
  al	
  (2006)	
  state	
  that	
  educational	
  assessment	
  “should	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  support	
  [educators]	
  
in	
  developing	
  interpretations,	
  decisions	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  enhance	
  students’	
  learning.”	
  
Validity	
  “refers	
  to	
  the	
  soundness	
  of	
  	
  [those]	
  decisions,	
  interpretations	
  or	
  actions.”	
  (Moss	
  et	
  
al.,	
  2006).	
  Wynne	
  Harlen	
  (2007)	
  defines	
  validity	
  as	
  “how	
  well	
  what	
  is	
  assessed	
  corresponds	
  
with	
  the	
  behaviour	
  or	
  learning	
  outcome	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  intended	
  should	
  be	
  assessed;	
  this	
  is	
  often	
  
referred	
  to	
  as	
  construct	
  validity.”	
  	
  He	
  clarifies	
  that	
  the	
  “important	
  requirement	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                        Assessment

assessment	
  concerns	
  all	
  aspects	
  –	
  and	
  only	
  those	
  aspects	
  -­‐	
  of	
  students'	
  achievement	
  
relevant	
  to	
  a	
  particular	
  purpose.”	
  (Harlen,	
  2007).	
  	
  
	
  
Validity	
  has	
  been	
  traditionally	
  broken	
  into	
  three	
  domains.	
  Content	
  validity	
  “demonstrates	
  
how	
  well	
  the	
  test	
  samples	
  the	
  class	
  situations	
  or	
  subject	
  matter	
  about	
  which	
  conclusions	
  are	
  
to	
  be	
  drawn.”	
  (Moss	
  et	
  al.,	
  2006).	
  Criterion-­‐related	
  validity	
  compares	
  those	
  scores	
  with	
  “one	
  
or	
  more	
  external	
  variables	
  considered	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  direct	
  measure	
  of	
  the	
  characteristic	
  or	
  
behavior	
  in	
  question.”	
  (Moss	
  et	
  al.,	
  2006).	
  Construct	
  validity	
  can	
  be	
  described	
  as	
  “a	
  more	
  
indirect	
  method	
  of	
  validation,	
  “	
  (Moss	
  et	
  al.,	
  2006).	
  Harlen	
  elucidates	
  construct	
  validity	
  as	
  
being	
  “based	
  on	
  an	
  integration	
  of	
  any	
  evidence	
  that	
  bears	
  on	
  the	
  interpretation	
  or	
  meaning	
  
of	
  the	
  test	
  scores—including	
  content-­‐	
  and	
  criterion-­‐related	
  evidence—which	
  are	
  thus	
  
subsumed	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  construct	
  validity.” On	
  the	
  other	
  hand, Messick	
  (1995)	
  describes	
  
construct	
  validity	
  as	
  being	
  “not	
  a	
  property	
  of	
  the	
  test	
  or	
  assessment	
  as	
  such,	
  but	
  rather	
  of	
  
the	
  meaning	
  of	
  the	
  test	
  scores.”	
  	
  (Messick,	
  1995).	
  He	
  goes	
  further,	
  arguing	
  that	
  construct	
  
validity	
  can	
  be	
  broken	
  into	
  six	
  sub-­‐domains:	
  “content,	
  substantive,	
  structural,	
  
generalizability,	
  external,	
  and	
  consequential	
  aspects	
  of	
  construct	
  validity.”	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  classroom	
  practice	
  and	
  assessment	
  in	
  the	
  MYP,	
  we	
  are	
  most	
  concerned	
  about	
  ‘what	
  to	
  
assess’	
  and	
  ‘how	
  to	
  assess’.	
  A	
  third	
  fundamental	
  aspect	
  of	
  evaluating	
  the	
  usefulness	
  of	
  an	
  
assessment	
  model	
  or	
  tools	
  is	
  reliability.	
  This	
  is	
  described	
  by	
  Harlen	
  (2007)	
  in	
  his	
  Criteria	
  for	
  
evaluating	
  systems	
  for	
  student	
  assessment	
  as	
  being	
  “the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  results	
  are	
  of	
  
acceptable	
  consistency	
  for	
  a	
  particular	
  use,”	
  or,	
  more	
  commonly	
  “the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  
assessment,	
  if	
  repeated,	
  would	
  give	
  the	
  same	
  result.”	
  
	
  
Harlen	
  also	
  makes	
  the	
  distinction	
  between	
  tools	
  used	
  for	
  formative	
  assessment	
  and	
  
summative	
  assessment.	
  Formative	
  assessment,	
  (assessment	
  for	
  learning),	
  has	
  the	
  intended	
  
purpose	
  “of	
  helping	
  learning	
  and	
  teaching.”	
  Summative	
  assessment	
  information,	
  
(assessment	
  of	
  learning),	
  “is	
  required	
  for	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  keeping	
  records	
  of	
  the	
  progress	
  of	
  
individual	
  students,	
  reporting	
  to	
  parents	
  and	
  students	
  at	
  regular	
  intervals,	
  passing	
  
information	
  to	
  other	
  teachers	
  on	
  transfer	
  from	
  class	
  to	
  class	
  or	
  in	
  guiding	
  decisions	
  about	
  
subjects	
  for	
  further	
  study”.	
  (Harlen,	
  2007).	
  	
  Formative	
  assessment	
  plays	
  a	
  vital	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  
classroom,	
  though	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  I	
  will	
  be	
  looking	
  at	
  the	
  assessment	
  of	
  the	
  MYP	
  models	
  
through	
  the	
  lens	
  of	
  final-­‐year,	
  summative	
  assessment.	
  	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                              Assessment

When	
  evaluating	
  assessment	
  in	
  the	
  MYP,	
  we	
  should	
  ask	
  three	
  key	
  questions:	
  	
  
            •       Does	
  this	
  mode	
  of	
  assessment	
  allow	
  us	
  to	
  assess	
  the	
  content	
  we	
  intend	
  to	
  
                    assess	
  -­‐	
  does	
  it	
  have	
  content	
  validity?	
  
            •       Does	
  this	
  mode	
  of	
  assessment	
  allow	
  us	
  to	
  assess	
  the	
  skills	
  or	
  attributes	
  we	
  
                    intend	
  to	
  assess	
  –	
  does	
  it	
  have	
  criterion-­‐related	
  validity?	
  
            •       Does	
  this	
  mode	
  of	
  assessment	
  provide	
  us	
  with	
  reliable	
  and	
  verifiable	
  
                    assessment	
  data	
  –	
  is	
  it	
  reliable?	
  
	
  
If	
  we	
  can	
  answer	
  these	
  three	
  questions	
  in	
  the	
  affirmative,	
  we	
  could	
  conclude	
  that	
  the	
  
assessment	
  is	
  indeed	
  ‘fit	
  for	
  purpose’.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Assessment	
  in	
  the	
  Middle	
  Years	
  Programme:	
  methods	
  and	
  challenges	
  
Assessment	
  of	
  student	
  achievement	
  in	
  both	
  the	
  current	
  MYP	
  and	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  derive	
  
from	
  shared	
  foundations	
  in	
  educational	
  assessment	
  theory.	
  These	
  are	
  well	
  documented	
  in	
  
the	
  IB’s	
  publication	
  MYP:	
  principles	
  into	
  practice	
  (2008),	
  and	
  include	
  criterion-­‐related	
  
assessment,	
  the	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach,	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  formative	
  assessment,	
  fitness	
  for	
  purpose	
  of	
  
assessment	
  tools,	
  feedback	
  and	
  grade	
  determination.	
  	
  
	
  
Assessment	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  has	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  aims,	
  below	
  quoted	
  from	
  MYP:	
  from	
  principles	
  to	
  
practice	
  (IB,	
  2008):	
  	
  
“Assessment	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  aims	
  to:	
  
        •       support	
  and	
  encourage	
  student	
  learning	
  by	
  providing	
  feedback	
  on	
  the	
  learning	
  process	
  
        •       inform,	
  enhance	
  and	
  improve	
  the	
  teaching	
  process	
  
        •       promote	
  positive	
  student	
  attitudes	
  towards	
  learning	
  
        •       promote	
  a	
  deep	
  understanding	
  of	
  subject	
  content	
  by	
  supporting	
  students	
  in	
  their	
  inquiries	
  
                set	
  in	
  real	
  world	
  contexts	
  using	
  the	
  areas	
  of	
  interaction	
  
        •       promote	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  higher-­‐order	
  cognitive	
  skills	
  by	
  providing	
  rigorous	
  final	
  
                objectives	
  that	
  value	
  these	
  skills	
  
        •       reflect	
  the	
  international-­‐mindedness	
  of	
  the	
  programme	
  by	
  allowing	
  for	
  assessments	
  to	
  be	
  
                set	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  cultural	
  and	
  linguistic	
  contexts	
  
        •       	
  support	
  the	
  holistic	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  programme	
  by	
  including	
  in	
  its	
  model	
  principles	
  that	
  take	
  
                account	
  of	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  whole	
  student”	
  
                                                                                                                                  (IB,	
  2008,	
  p.41)	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                 Assessment

	
  
These	
  aims	
  are	
  supplemented	
  with	
  further	
  subject-­‐specific	
  aims	
  and	
  objectives.	
  Within	
  each	
  
of	
  the	
  subjects	
  there	
  are	
  multiple	
  criteria,	
  each	
  with	
  its	
  own	
  aims	
  and	
  objectives.	
  Appendix	
  
2	
  lists	
  the	
  aims	
  and	
  objectives	
  of	
  the	
  sciences.	
  With	
  eight	
  subject	
  groups	
  in	
  total	
  we	
  can	
  see	
  
that	
  one	
  obstacle	
  to	
  validity	
  in	
  MYP	
  assessment	
  lies	
  in	
  the	
  sheer	
  volume	
  of	
  content	
  and	
  
objectives	
  that	
  are	
  to	
  be	
  assessed.	
  It	
  is	
  good	
  practice	
  to	
  assess	
  through	
  ‘multiple	
  measures’,	
  
with	
  an	
  IB	
  stipulation	
  of	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  data	
  points	
  per	
  criterion	
  per	
  year	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.54).	
  In	
  
reality,	
  that	
  plays	
  out	
  in	
  schools	
  as	
  being	
  two	
  data	
  points	
  per	
  reporting	
  period	
  (commonly	
  a	
  
semester).	
  There	
  are	
  six	
  assessed	
  criteria	
  in	
  the	
  sciences,	
  four	
  in	
  other	
  subjects.	
  As	
  a	
  
consequence,	
  students	
  face	
  a	
  minimum	
  of	
  eight	
  summative	
  assessments	
  per	
  semester	
  in	
  
some	
  subjects	
  and	
  twelve	
  in	
  others.	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  incredible	
  load	
  on	
  teachers	
  and	
  students	
  and	
  
at	
  the	
  high-­‐school	
  level	
  can	
  leave	
  teachers	
  in	
  a	
  position	
  of	
  poor	
  assessment	
  practices	
  –	
  
cramming	
  content	
  ‘in	
  preparation	
  for	
  the	
  Diploma’,	
  assigning	
  assessed	
  tasks	
  as	
  homework	
  
or	
  simply	
  missing	
  out	
  valuable	
  steps	
  such	
  as	
  exploration,	
  drafting	
  and	
  peer	
  or	
  self-­‐
assessment.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  the	
  MYP,	
  paired	
  with	
  the	
  significant	
  backwash	
  effect	
  of	
  
Diploma	
  Programme	
  preparation,	
  could	
  be	
  having	
  a	
  negative	
  impact	
  not	
  just	
  on	
  content	
  
validity	
  but	
  likely	
  also	
  reliability.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Grading	
  and	
  reporting	
  
Overall	
  grades	
  on	
  students’	
  progress	
  in	
  the	
  eight	
  academic	
  subject	
  groups	
  are	
  reported	
  on	
  a	
  
1-­‐7	
  scale.	
  A	
  full	
  set	
  of	
  descriptors	
  of	
  these	
  grades	
  is	
  included	
  in	
  Appendix	
  2.	
  These	
  1-­‐7	
  scores	
  
are	
  determined	
  against	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  published	
  grade	
  boundaries	
  for	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  eight	
  subject	
  
groups.	
  A	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach	
  is	
  used	
  to	
  determine	
  the	
  score	
  for	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  subject’s	
  
assessment	
  criteria.	
  These	
  scores	
  are	
  then	
  added	
  up	
  and	
  grade	
  boundaries	
  are	
  applied.	
  The	
  
positioning	
  of	
  these	
  boundaries	
  is	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  norm-­‐referencing	
  to	
  some	
  extent	
  in	
  the	
  
MYP.	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  point	
  at	
  which	
  and	
  essentially	
  descriptive,	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  system	
  is	
  used	
  to	
  
produce	
  a	
  single	
  numerical	
  score	
  –	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  sciences	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  quite	
  add	
  up.	
  A	
  student	
  
who	
  scores	
  4	
  in	
  all	
  criteria	
  falls	
  one	
  point	
  the	
  wrong	
  side	
  of	
  a	
  5	
  grade	
  overall	
  –	
  the	
  grade	
  
which	
  best	
  represents	
  his	
  achievement	
  when	
  the	
  descriptors	
  are	
  compared	
  to	
  one	
  another.	
  
This	
  suggests	
  an	
  issue	
  with	
  criterion	
  validity,	
  but	
  could	
  be	
  remedied	
  with	
  a	
  normative	
  
decision	
  to	
  move	
  the	
  boundary.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                        Assessment

In	
  the	
  current	
  model	
  of	
  the	
  MYP,	
  “all	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  students	
  is	
  internally	
  assessed	
  by	
  teachers.	
  
There	
  is	
  no	
  formal	
  examination	
  structure,	
  no	
  system	
  of	
  external	
  assessment	
  and	
  the	
  IB	
  does	
  
not	
  provide	
  MYP	
  exams.”	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.52).	
  The	
  MYP	
  in	
  its	
  current	
  guise	
  is	
  commonly	
  
described	
  as	
  a	
  framework	
  for	
  teaching	
  and	
  assessment,	
  and	
  is	
  not	
  intended	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  
curriculum	
  or	
  replacement	
  for	
  standardized	
  testing.	
  The	
  MYP	
  Coordinator’s	
  Handbook	
  (IB,	
  
2010a)	
  goes	
  on	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  “external	
  examinations	
  provided	
  by	
  other	
  organisations	
  are	
  
unlikely	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  MYP	
  subject-­‐specific	
  objectives.”	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.52).	
  	
  
	
  
As	
  mentioned	
  before,	
  the	
  low	
  uptake	
  of	
  schools	
  in	
  the	
  formal	
  moderation	
  process	
  raises	
  
concerns	
  about	
  the	
  reliability	
  of	
  grades	
  awarded	
  in	
  MYP	
  assessment.	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  requirement	
  
that	
  schools	
  with	
  multiple	
  teachers	
  per	
  section	
  moderate	
  internally,	
  though	
  there	
  is	
  little	
  in	
  
the	
  way	
  of	
  quality	
  control	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  this	
  takes	
  place	
  until	
  the	
  school’s	
  five-­‐year	
  
evaluation	
  visit.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Criterion-­‐related	
  assessment	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  
Assessment	
  of	
  student	
  achievement	
  in	
  eight	
  subject	
  areas	
  and	
  the	
  personal	
  project	
  of	
  the	
  
MYP	
  are	
  entirely	
  criterion-­‐related,	
  using	
  a	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach	
  (IB,	
  2008,	
  p.40).	
  This	
  is	
  derived	
  
from	
  previous	
  practice	
  in	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  assessment.	
  	
  Although	
  similar,	
  and	
  often	
  
confused	
  by	
  teachers	
  and	
  administrators,	
  there	
  are	
  subtle	
  differences	
  between	
  the	
  two	
  
approaches.	
  To	
  fully	
  understand	
  the	
  impacts	
  of	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  and	
  the	
  continuing	
  role	
  of	
  
criterion-­‐related	
  assessment,	
  we	
  must	
  first	
  understand	
  these	
  key	
  modes	
  of	
  assessment.	
  	
  
	
  
Norm-­‐referenced	
  assessment	
  of	
  student	
  achievement	
  does	
  not	
  overtly	
  exist	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  and	
  
is	
  not	
  generally	
  accepted	
  practice	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  classroom.	
  Norms	
  are	
  traditionally	
  used	
  to	
  
rank	
  learners	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  their	
  perceived	
  achievement	
  in	
  a	
  test	
  or	
  assessment	
  battery.	
  
Norm-­‐referencing	
  “places	
  groups	
  of	
  students	
  into	
  predetermined	
  bands	
  of	
  achievements.	
  
Students	
  compete	
  for	
  limited	
  numbers	
  of	
  grades	
  within	
  these	
  bands	
  which	
  range	
  between	
  
fail	
  and	
  excellence.”	
  (Dunn	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002)	
  In	
  its	
  most	
  traditional	
  sense,	
  norm-­‐referencing	
  
measures	
  students	
  only	
  against	
  others	
  and	
  is	
  not	
  necessarily	
  a	
  good	
  measure	
  of	
  content	
  
mastery	
  (O'Connor,	
  2011,	
  pp.79-­‐80).	
  Norm-­‐referenced	
  grading	
  is,	
  in	
  essence,	
  a	
  competitive	
  
pursuit	
  and	
  not	
  in	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  all	
  students	
  –	
  especially	
  those	
  who	
  struggle	
  to	
  succeed.	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                      Assessment

This	
  may	
  be	
  appropriate	
  in	
  a	
  competitive	
  environment,	
  but	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  suit	
  the	
  inclusive	
  
nature	
  of	
  the	
  IB	
  programmes.	
  	
  
	
  
Criterion-­‐referenced	
  achievement	
  “is	
  not	
  dependent	
  on	
  how	
  well	
  others	
  in	
  the	
  cohort	
  have	
  
performed,	
  but	
  on	
  how	
  well	
  the	
  individual	
  student	
  has	
  performed	
  as	
  measured	
  against	
  
specific	
  criteria	
  and	
  standards.”	
  (Dunn	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002).	
  It	
  is	
  an	
  assessment	
  idea	
  which	
  has	
  been	
  
in	
  use	
  since	
  the	
  1960s	
  although	
  it	
  wasn’t	
  until	
  the	
  early	
  1970’s	
  that	
  academics	
  such	
  as	
  
Hambleton	
  &	
  Novick	
  (1973)	
  joined	
  up	
  key	
  ideas	
  in	
  theory	
  and	
  practice.	
  They	
  state	
  that	
  in	
  
common	
  with	
  all	
  previous	
  definitions	
  of	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  assessment	
  is	
  that	
  	
  “the	
  
definition	
  of	
  a	
  well-­‐specified	
  content	
  domain	
  and	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  procedures	
  for	
  
generating	
  appropriate	
  samples	
  of	
  test	
  items	
  are	
  important.”	
  (Hambleton	
  &	
  Novick,	
  1973)	
  
	
  
	
  
Having	
  said	
  this,	
  it	
  could	
  be	
  argued,	
  as	
  David	
  F.	
  Lohman	
  quotes,	
  that,	
  “behind	
  every	
  criterion	
  
lurks	
  a	
  norm”	
  (Lohman,	
  2009).	
  In	
  assessment	
  of	
  learners	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  we	
  aim	
  to	
  measure	
  
them	
  against	
  pre-­‐determined	
  performance	
  outcomes	
  –	
  criterion	
  descriptors	
  –	
  but	
  how	
  are	
  
these	
  outcomes	
  decided?	
  	
  This	
  is	
  where,	
  to	
  a	
  greater	
  extent,	
  we	
  find	
  the	
  norm:	
  hiding	
  in	
  
plain	
  sight	
  as	
  the	
  command	
  terms	
  of	
  an	
  achievement-­‐level	
  descriptor!	
  
	
  
Assessment	
  in	
  a	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  system	
  raises	
  more	
  challenges	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  construct	
  
validity	
  than	
  traditional	
  norm-­‐referenced	
  tests,	
  as	
  described	
  by	
  Edward	
  Haertal	
  in	
  1985:	
  
           “When	
  tests	
  are	
  used	
  only	
  to	
  rank	
  examinees,	
  validity	
  can	
  be	
  established	
  by	
  simple	
  
           correlations	
  of	
  test	
  scores	
  with	
  criteria.	
  Criterion-­‐referenced	
  interpretations,	
  using	
  
           test	
  performance	
  […]	
  require	
  new	
  approaches	
  to	
  test	
  validation.”	
  
	
  
Essentially	
  here	
  we	
  see	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  command	
  terms	
  come	
  to	
  the	
  fore	
  –	
  the	
  language	
  
or	
  action-­‐verbs	
  used	
  in	
  assessment	
  tasks	
  and	
  descriptors:	
  
           “This	
  methodology	
  begins	
  with	
  the	
  description	
  of	
  the	
  achievement	
  construct	
  in	
  
           psychological	
  and	
  behavioral	
  terms.	
  The	
  psychological	
  description	
  of	
  the	
  
           achievement	
  construct	
  is	
  an	
  account	
  of	
  the	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills	
  it	
  entails.”	
  
                                                                                                                    	
  (Haertal,	
  1985)	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                           Assessment

            The	
  command	
  terms	
  are	
  a	
  defined	
  set	
  of	
  action	
  verbs	
  which	
  have	
  been	
  categorized	
  in	
  
            accordance	
  with	
  the	
  ideas	
  of	
  Bloom’s	
  taxonomy	
  to	
  represent	
  a	
  hierarchy	
  of	
  desired	
  
            achievement	
  constucts.	
  The	
  example	
  rubric	
  below,	
  for	
  the	
  sciences	
  criterion	
  C:	
  Knowledge	
  
            and	
  understanding,	
  demonstrates	
  this:	
  
            	
  
Table	
  1:	
  Criterion	
  C:	
  Knowledge	
  &	
  understanding	
  (current)	
  taken	
  from	
  the	
  MYP	
  Science	
  Guide	
  (IB,	
  2010b)	
  
Level	
         Descriptor	
  
0	
             The	
  student	
  does	
  not	
  meet	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  descriptors	
  below.	
  
1-­‐2	
         The student recalls some scientific ideas, concepts and/or processes.
                   The student applies scientific understanding to solve simple problems.	
  
3-­‐4	
            The student describes scientific ideas, concepts and/or processes.
                   The student applies scientific understanding to solve complex problems
                   in familiar situations.
                   The student analyses scientific information by identifying parts, relationships or causes.	
  
5-­‐6	
            The student uses scientific ideas, concepts and/or processes correctly to construct scientific explanations.
                   The student applies scientific understanding to solve complex problems including those in unfamiliar situations.
                   The student analyses and evaluates scientific information and makes judgments supported by scientific
                   understanding.	
  
            	
  
            The	
  descriptors	
  ‘recall’	
  and	
  ‘describe’	
  are	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  the	
  lower	
  end	
  on	
  Bloom’s	
  taxonomy	
  –	
  
            the	
  knowledge	
  domain.	
  However,	
  ‘construct’	
  and	
  ‘analyse’	
  appear	
  at	
  the	
  higher	
  end.	
  By	
  
            focusing	
  assessment	
  on	
  these	
  skills	
  and	
  knowledge	
  outcomes,	
  the	
  normative	
  aspect	
  of	
  
            assessment	
  is	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  grade-­‐level	
  descriptors.	
  	
  
            	
  
            This	
  generates	
  another	
  issue	
  with	
  content	
  and	
  criterion	
  validity	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  MYP	
  model.	
  
            At	
  the	
  moment,	
  these	
  command	
  terms	
  are	
  fully	
  defined	
  and	
  published	
  in	
  a	
  document	
  
            entitled	
  ‘Command	
  terms	
  in	
  the	
  MYP’	
  (IB,	
  2010c).	
  However,	
  they	
  are	
  not	
  present	
  in	
  all	
  
            subject	
  guides	
  and	
  the	
  usage	
  of	
  those	
  that	
  are	
  present	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  consistent	
  between	
  
            subjects.	
  A	
  lack	
  of	
  coherence	
  between	
  classrooms	
  may	
  lead	
  into	
  issues	
  of	
  criterion-­‐related	
  
            validity,	
  especially	
  for	
  students	
  and	
  teachers	
  who	
  teach	
  across	
  disciplines	
  and	
  see	
  command	
  
            terms	
  used	
  in	
  different	
  ways.	
  	
  
            	
  
            Criterion-­‐related	
  assessment	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  differs	
  from	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  assessment	
  in	
  a	
  
            subtle	
  but	
  important	
  way.	
  Criterion-­‐referenced	
  assessment	
  is	
  often	
  used	
  to	
  assess	
  mastery	
  
            of	
  skills	
  and	
  content.	
  Criterion-­‐related	
  assessment	
  uses	
  a	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach	
  to	
  assign	
  grades	
  
            to	
  students:	
  “When	
  assessing	
  a	
  student’s	
  work,	
  teachers	
  should	
  read	
  the	
  descriptors	
  
            (starting	
  with	
  level	
  0)	
  until	
  they	
  reach	
  a	
  descriptor	
  that	
  describes	
  an	
  achievement	
  level	
  that	
  
            the	
  work	
  being	
  assessed	
  has	
  not	
  attained.”	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.25)	
  In	
  practice,	
  this	
  allows	
  for	
  a	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                           Assessment

teacher	
  to	
  judge	
  a	
  student’s	
  work	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  most	
  appropriate	
  combination	
  of	
  
descriptors	
  as	
  outlines	
  in	
  the	
  rubric.	
  The	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach	
  also	
  covers	
  assigning	
  final	
  grades.	
  
Averages	
  and	
  percentages	
  are	
  not	
  acceptable	
  practice	
  –	
  instead	
  one	
  must	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  recent	
  
trend	
  in	
  a	
  student’s	
  work	
  towards	
  a	
  given	
  criterion.	
  For	
  this	
  reason	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  that	
  there	
  
are	
  multiple	
  measures	
  for	
  each	
  criterion	
  per	
  reporting	
  period.	
  A	
  clarification	
  of	
  the	
  IB’s	
  
position	
  on	
  best-­‐fit	
  grading	
  is	
  included	
  in	
  Appendix	
  3.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach	
  to	
  assessment	
  is	
  a	
  strength	
  of	
  the	
  MYP	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  criterion-­‐related	
  
validity	
  as	
  it	
  focuses	
  on	
  the	
  student’s	
  ability	
  to	
  achieve	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  pre-­‐determined,	
  
published	
  performance	
  descriptors.	
  With	
  the	
  best-­‐fit	
  approach,	
  teachers	
  are	
  best	
  placed	
  to	
  
assess	
  a	
  student’s	
  work	
  for	
  what	
  they	
  have	
  achieved,	
  rather	
  than	
  what	
  they	
  have	
  not	
  (which	
  
is	
  a	
  feature	
  of	
  pure	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  assessment).	
  	
  It	
  is	
  reliable	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  multiple	
  
measures	
  and	
  evidence	
  of	
  trends	
  in	
  student	
  achievement.	
  However,	
  for	
  the	
  system	
  to	
  work	
  
effectively,	
  there	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  multiple	
  measures	
  of	
  each	
  criterion	
  –	
  which	
  regularly	
  proves	
  a	
  
challenge	
  in	
  a	
  subject	
  with	
  six	
  criteria.	
  In	
  some	
  classes,	
  a	
  ‘race	
  to	
  assess’	
  can	
  impact	
  both	
  
reliability	
  and	
  validity.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  a	
  recent	
  study	
  in	
  Sweden,	
  grade	
  inflation	
  was	
  observed	
  in	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  
assessment	
  system.	
  (Wikström,	
  2005).	
  	
  Wikström	
  found	
  in	
  her	
  study	
  over	
  six	
  years	
  that	
  
grades	
  had	
  been	
  increasing	
  in	
  the	
  criterion-­‐referenced	
  system	
  and	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  exclude	
  
factors	
  relating	
  to	
  authentic	
  improved	
  achievements,	
  strategic	
  course	
  selection	
  and	
  
selective	
  exclusion	
  of	
  low-­‐achievers.	
  What	
  remained	
  was	
  a	
  lowering	
  of	
  standards,	
  with	
  a	
  
more	
  notable	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  Arts	
  and	
  the	
  lowest	
  in	
  English	
  and	
  Mathematics,	
  subjects	
  
calibrated	
  against	
  national	
  tests.	
  In	
  a	
  typical	
  MYP	
  classroom,	
  assessment	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  hands	
  of	
  
the	
  teacher	
  and	
  therefore	
  prone	
  to	
  positive	
  grading	
  or	
  an	
  indivdual’s	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  
criteria.	
  Under	
  the	
  current	
  system	
  which	
  includes	
  attitudinal	
  grades,	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  grade	
  
inflation	
  may	
  be	
  more	
  pronounced,	
  having	
  a	
  negative	
  impact	
  on	
  reliability	
  of	
  grades	
  
awarded.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  the	
  sciences	
  it	
  could	
  be	
  argued	
  tha	
  half	
  of	
  a	
  student’s	
  current	
  grade	
  comes	
  not	
  from	
  the	
  
‘hard	
  science’	
  of	
  knowledge	
  and	
  lab	
  investigative	
  skills	
  but	
  from	
  a	
  more	
  social-­‐sciences	
  and	
  
language	
  leaning	
  towards	
  One	
  World,	
  Communication	
  in	
  science	
  and	
  Attitudes	
  in	
  science.	
  
This	
  raises	
  a	
  concern	
  over	
  content	
  validity	
  –	
  is	
  a	
  student	
  scoring	
  well	
  because	
  she	
  is	
  good	
  at	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                           Assessment

science	
  or	
  is	
  it	
  because	
  what	
  is	
  being	
  assessed	
  is	
  not	
  science?	
  It	
  also	
  raises	
  a	
  more	
  serious	
  
question	
  of	
  reliability	
  and	
  appropriateness	
  when	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  grade	
  is	
  devoted	
  to	
  attitudinal	
  or	
  
behavioural	
  evidence	
  –	
  which	
  can	
  be	
  subjective,	
  is	
  hard	
  to	
  track	
  and	
  does	
  not	
  give	
  a	
  
measure	
  of	
  a	
  student’s	
  genuine	
  achivements	
  in	
  science.	
  (O'Connor,	
  2011,	
  pp.16-­‐20).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Validity	
  and	
  reliability	
  in	
  science	
  assessment	
  in	
  MYP:	
  The	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  	
  
So	
  does	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  address	
  the	
  issues	
  in	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability	
  that	
  are	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  
current	
  model	
  and	
  how	
  does	
  this	
  impact	
  the	
  sciences?	
  To	
  get	
  a	
  better	
  picture	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  
these	
  proposed	
  changes	
  (which	
  are	
  currently	
  being	
  implemented	
  in	
  selected	
  pilot	
  schools),	
  
please	
  refer	
  to	
  Appendices	
  4-­‐7	
  which	
  include:	
  summary	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  aims	
  of	
  the	
  sciences;	
  
summary	
  changes	
  to	
  assessment	
  in	
  the	
  sciences;	
  comparison	
  of	
  old	
  vs	
  new	
  assessment	
  
criteria;	
  and,	
  comparison	
  of	
  grade	
  level	
  descriptors	
  for	
  the	
  knowledge-­‐related	
  criterion.	
  	
  
	
  
Criterion-­‐related	
  validity	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  sciences	
  
Paring	
  back	
  the	
  aims,	
  assessed	
  criteria	
  and	
  descriptors	
  of	
  the	
  sciences	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  
positive	
  effect	
  on	
  criterion-­‐related	
  validity.	
  Through	
  a	
  clearer,	
  shorter	
  and	
  better-­‐defined	
  
set	
  of	
  aims	
  and	
  objectives,	
  the	
  task	
  of	
  assessing	
  whether	
  a	
  student	
  has	
  met	
  these	
  goals	
  will	
  
be	
  more	
  manageable	
  and	
  potentially	
  more	
  reliable.	
  	
  
	
  
Cutting	
  the	
  sciences	
  criteria	
  from	
  six	
  to	
  four	
  will	
  also	
  likely	
  have	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  positive	
  
impacts	
  on	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability.	
  The	
  removal	
  of	
  the	
  behavioural	
  Attitudes	
  in	
  science	
  
criterion	
  will	
  allow	
  for	
  more	
  reliable	
  assessment	
  of	
  a	
  student’s	
  actual	
  achievements	
  against	
  
the	
  science	
  aims	
  and	
  objectives,	
  with	
  a	
  reduced	
  risk	
  of	
  subjective	
  contamination.	
  With	
  the	
  
best	
  practice	
  of	
  multiple	
  measures,	
  four	
  criteria	
  are	
  easier	
  to	
  handle	
  than	
  six.	
  This	
  should	
  
give	
  more	
  opportunities	
  for	
  meaningful	
  assessment	
  of	
  each	
  criterion.	
  It	
  will	
  be	
  an	
  
interesting	
  study,	
  that	
  which	
  addresses	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  removing	
  these	
  attitudinal	
  criteria	
  on	
  
overall	
  student	
  achievement.	
  One	
  might	
  hypothesise	
  that	
  overall	
  1-­‐7	
  scores	
  will	
  decrease	
  as	
  
the	
  ‘safety	
  nets’	
  of	
  Communication	
  in	
  science	
  and	
  Attitudes	
  in	
  science	
  are	
  removed	
  from	
  the	
  
conceptually	
  weaker	
  students.	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  an	
  increased	
  programme-­‐wide	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  command	
  terms,	
  with	
  common	
  
definitions,	
  should	
  serve	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  language	
  of	
  assessment	
  easier	
  for	
  all	
  to	
  understand	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                           Assessment

and	
  lead	
  to	
  more	
  criterion-­‐related	
  reliability.	
  Wordy	
  descriptors	
  with	
  multiple	
  command	
  
terms	
  should	
  be	
  replaced	
  with	
  more	
  concise	
  descriptors,	
  giving	
  a	
  focus	
  for	
  assessment	
  of	
  
the	
  criterion.	
  With	
  a	
  more	
  manageable	
  task	
  in	
  hand,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  identify	
  
performance	
  elements	
  which	
  will	
  allow	
  them	
  to	
  access	
  higher	
  grades.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Content	
  validity	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  sciences	
  
The	
  MYP	
  is	
  described	
  as	
  a	
  framework	
  for	
  assessment	
  and	
  learning	
  and	
  not	
  an	
  exhaustive	
  
curriculum.	
  This	
  allows	
  scope	
  for	
  schools	
  to	
  set	
  their	
  own	
  levels	
  of	
  content	
  validity,	
  such	
  as	
  
meeting	
  the	
  state	
  science	
  content	
  standards.	
  However,	
  this	
  can	
  be	
  a	
  challenge	
  for	
  schools	
  
where	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  parallel	
  set	
  of	
  standards	
  and	
  can	
  make	
  the	
  feed-­‐in	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  MYP	
  to	
  the	
  
DP	
  difficult.	
  In	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter,	
  clearer	
  guidelines	
  for	
  content	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  significant	
  
concepts	
  and	
  perhaps	
  even	
  online	
  support	
  content	
  should	
  allow	
  teachers	
  to	
  plan	
  units	
  of	
  
work	
  which	
  can	
  be	
  assessed	
  with	
  greater	
  content	
  validity.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Testing	
  knowledge	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  sciences	
  
Under	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter,	
  he	
  key	
  proposal	
  that	
  the	
  Using	
  knowledge	
  criterion	
  “must	
  only	
  be	
  
assessed	
  through	
  tests	
  or	
  exams,”	
  (IB,	
  2011)	
  is,	
  to	
  me,	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  interesting	
  changes	
  
to	
  be	
  put	
  forth	
  in	
  the	
  MYP	
  sciences.	
  It	
  represents	
  a	
  move	
  to	
  an	
  assessment	
  of	
  knowledge	
  
that	
  at	
  face	
  value	
  may	
  seem	
  more	
  ‘old-­‐fashioned’	
  and	
  less	
  suited	
  to	
  differentiation	
  to	
  
students’	
  needs	
  than	
  the	
  current	
  system.	
  The	
  working	
  sciences	
  guide	
  allows	
  for	
  assessment	
  
of	
  Knowledge	
  and	
  understanding	
  through	
  a	
  diversity	
  of	
  modes,	
  including	
  case	
  studies	
  and	
  
response	
  to	
  articles	
  or	
  datasets	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.31).	
  As	
  long	
  as	
  testing	
  is	
  used	
  well	
  the	
  new	
  
system	
  will	
  allow	
  for	
  greater	
  reliability	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  produced	
  (free	
  from	
  potential	
  
contamination	
  of	
  other	
  students’	
  ideas	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  system).	
  It	
  may	
  also	
  have	
  a	
  
positive	
  impact	
  on	
  consequential	
  validity	
  as	
  students	
  move	
  into	
  the	
  DP	
  and	
  preparation	
  for	
  
a	
  final	
  exam	
  marked	
  on	
  grade	
  boundaries,	
  making	
  up	
  76%	
  of	
  their	
  summative	
  assessment.	
  	
  
	
  
Arguably	
  the	
  move	
  to	
  stipulate	
  testing	
  or	
  exams	
  as	
  a	
  method	
  of	
  assessment	
  of	
  Using	
  
knowledge	
  is	
  one	
  to	
  ensure	
  greater	
  reliability	
  of	
  assessment.	
  In	
  practice,	
  this	
  will	
  hold	
  
significant	
  challenges	
  for	
  teachers	
  that	
  will	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  given	
  professional	
  development	
  
considerations	
  from	
  the	
  IB.	
  As	
  Sylvia	
  Green	
  notes,	
  	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                            Assessment

           “…The	
  links	
  between	
  the	
  level	
  descriptions	
  and	
  [the	
  national]	
  test	
  mark	
  schemes	
  are	
  
           not	
  so	
  transparent.	
  	
  Different	
  elements	
  within	
  structured	
  questions	
  may	
  address	
  
           different	
  levels	
  and	
  content,	
  even	
  different	
  domains	
  within	
  the	
  subject,	
  therefore	
  it	
  
           may	
  be	
  difficult	
  to	
  classify	
  some	
  questions	
  as	
  ‘at	
  a	
  particular	
  level’.	
  	
  In	
  such	
  
           circumstances	
  standard	
  setting	
  is	
  done	
  by	
  determining	
  ‘thresholds’	
  in	
  total	
  test	
  
           scores,	
  initially	
  by	
  judgmental	
  means	
  and	
  subsequently	
  using	
  statistical	
  equating	
  to	
  
           support	
  judgments.“	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (Green,	
  2002)	
  
	
  
Test	
  design	
  is	
  a	
  complex	
  business	
  and	
  designing	
  tests	
  that	
  work	
  in	
  a	
  criterion-­‐related	
  
situation	
  is	
  a	
  challenge.	
  As	
  a	
  traditional	
  mode	
  of	
  assessment	
  that	
  gives	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  
rigour	
  and	
  ‘academia’,	
  it	
  will	
  take	
  a	
  concerted	
  effort	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  approach	
  of	
  stakeholders	
  
in	
  assessment	
  and	
  to	
  reinforce	
  the	
  criterion-­‐related	
  approach.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  Conclusions	
  &	
  Recommendations	
  
A	
  great	
  deal	
  of	
  thought	
  and	
  scholarship	
  lies	
  behind	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  and	
  its	
  implications	
  for	
  
assessment	
  in	
  the	
  sciences.	
  Removal	
  of	
  attitudinal	
  criteria,	
  clearly	
  defined	
  command	
  terms,	
  
more	
  concise	
  achievement-­‐level	
  descriptors	
  and	
  a	
  narrower	
  set	
  of	
  acceptable	
  assessment	
  
tools	
  should	
  serve	
  to	
  enhance	
  reliability	
  of	
  assessment.	
  Emphasis	
  on	
  the	
  aims	
  of	
  the	
  
sciences	
  and	
  the	
  proposed	
  production	
  of	
  pre-­‐populated	
  online	
  unit	
  planner	
  tools	
  may	
  make	
  
some	
  headway	
  in	
  validity	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  being	
  assessed.	
  However,	
  it	
  will	
  take	
  considerable	
  work	
  
on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  IB,	
  school	
  leaders	
  and	
  teachers	
  to	
  translate	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  into	
  
effective	
  classroom	
  action.	
  	
  
	
  
Professional	
  development	
  of	
  all	
  teachers	
  must	
  play	
  a	
  central	
  role	
  in	
  ensuring	
  that	
  
assessment	
  in	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter	
  makes	
  a	
  successful	
  translation	
  from	
  paper	
  to	
  practice.	
  With	
  
over	
  900	
  schools	
  practicing	
  the	
  MYP,	
  it	
  must	
  not	
  be	
  assumed	
  that	
  the	
  teachers	
  in	
  each	
  
classroom	
  and	
  the	
  administrators	
  in	
  each	
  office	
  are	
  clued-­‐in	
  to	
  current	
  educational	
  
philosophy	
  and	
  practices.	
  It	
  is	
  already	
  a	
  programme	
  authorization	
  and	
  evaluation	
  
requirement	
  that	
  teachers	
  attend	
  MYP	
  workshops	
  for	
  programme	
  delivery	
  and	
  
development.	
  Online	
  and	
  in-­‐school	
  workshops,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  Online	
  Curriculum	
  Centre	
  
(OCC)	
  exist	
  as	
  tools	
  for	
  professional	
  development	
  and	
  are	
  becoming	
  stronger.	
  	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                           Assessment

The	
  IB	
  should	
  take	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  capitalize	
  on	
  its	
  own	
  developments	
  and	
  opportunities	
  
by	
  including	
  making	
  explicit	
  discussion	
  of	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability	
  in	
  assessment	
  practices	
  a	
  
part	
  of	
  these	
  resources.	
  Outreach	
  through	
  the	
  OCC,	
  video	
  or	
  article	
  resources.	
  	
  
	
  
Clear	
  exemplars,	
  such	
  as	
  those	
  generally	
  found	
  in	
  teachers’	
  support	
  material,	
  must	
  be	
  made	
  
widely	
  available	
  and	
  readily	
  accessible	
  if	
  they	
  are	
  to	
  be	
  put	
  to	
  good	
  use.	
  This	
  is	
  of	
  particular	
  
importance	
  to	
  testing	
  –	
  perhaps	
  the	
  one	
  criterion	
  which	
  represents	
  the	
  biggest	
  change	
  for	
  
science	
  teachers	
  in	
  their	
  methods.	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  need	
  to	
  allow	
  teachers	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  effective	
  development	
  of	
  their	
  
students’	
  assessment	
  practices.	
  With	
  the	
  removal	
  of	
  attitudinal	
  grading,	
  and	
  its	
  
consequential	
  boost	
  to	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability,	
  comes	
  an	
  increases	
  likelihood	
  of	
  a	
  failing	
  
student.	
  It	
  must	
  emphasized	
  through	
  all	
  professional	
  development	
  modes,	
  handbooks	
  and	
  
other	
  available	
  media	
  that	
  effective,	
  criterion-­‐related	
  formative	
  assessment	
  plays	
  a	
  crucial	
  
role	
  in	
  development:	
  
	
  
            “There	
  is	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  firm	
  evidence	
  that	
  formative	
  assessment	
  is	
  an	
  essential	
  
            component	
  of	
  classroom	
  work	
  and	
  that	
  its	
  development	
  can	
  raise	
  standards	
  of	
  
            achievement.”	
  (Black	
  &	
  Wiliam,	
  2010)	
  
	
  
With	
  some	
  excitement,	
  but	
  also	
  trepidation,	
  I	
  look	
  forward	
  to	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter.	
  Early	
  signs	
  
look	
  positive	
  that	
  it	
  will	
  become	
  more	
  reliable	
  and	
  valid	
  in	
  its	
  assessment:	
  it	
  will	
  evolve	
  into	
  
a	
  form	
  that	
  shows	
  greater	
  fitness	
  for	
  purpose.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Acknowledgements	
  
	
  


Thank-­‐you	
  to	
  Malcolm	
  Nicolson,	
  Head	
  of	
  the	
  Middle	
  Years	
  Programme,	
  and	
  Sean	
  Rankin,	
  
Head	
  of	
  Curriculum	
  and	
  Assessment	
  for	
  the	
  Sciences,	
  for	
  their	
  input	
  and	
  willingness	
  to	
  
answer	
  questions	
  by	
  email.	
  Thanks	
  also	
  to	
  Sue	
  Martin	
  for	
  her	
  guidance	
  and	
  mentoring	
  
during	
  the	
  summer	
  school	
  and	
  by	
  email	
  since.	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                Assessment


	
  
                                          References

Bishop, K., Bullock, K., Martin, S. & Thompson, J., 1999. Users' perceptions of the GCSE.
Educational Research, 41(1), pp.35-49.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D., 2010. Kappan Classic: Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through
Classroom Assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan , 92(1), pp.81-90.

CIE, 2011. Cambridge IGCSE Brochure (pdf). [Online] Available at:
http://www.cie.org.uk/docs/qualifications/igcse/IGCSE%20Brochure.pdf [Accessed 4 January
2012].

Dunn, L., Parry, S. & Morgan, C., 2002. Seeking quality in criterion referenced assessment.
[Online] Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002257.htm [Accessed 20
February 2012].

Green, S., 2002. Criterion referenced assessment as a guide to learning - the importance of
progression and reliability. [Presentation, available online at:] Johannesburg Available at:
http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/113775_Criterion_Referenced_Assess
ment_as_a_Guide_to_Learning._The_.pdf [Accessed 13 February 2012].

Haertal, E., 1985. Construct Validity and Criterion-Referenced Testing. Review of Educational
Research, 55(1), pp.23-46.

Hambleton, R.K. & Novick, M.R., 1973. Toward an integration of theory and method for
criterion-referenced tests.. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10(3), pp.159-70.

Harlen, W., 2007. Criteria for evaluating systems for student assessment. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 33(1), pp.15-28.

IB, 2008. MYP: From principles to practice [Note: Password protected]. Cardiff, UK:
International Baccalaureate Organisation. Available at: http://ibo.org [password protected]
[accessed 18 October 2011].

IB, 2009. The Middle Years Programme: A basis for practice (pdf). Cardiff, UK: International
Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 4
January 2012].

IB, 2010a. MYP Coordinator's Handbook (pdf). Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate
Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org/ [password protected] [accessed 4 January 2012].

IB, 2010b. MYP: Sciences guide. For use from January 2011. Cardiff, UK: International
Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 30
January 2011].

IB, 2010c. Command terms in the MYP. Cardiff, UK: International Baccaluareate Organisation.
Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 30 January 2011].

IB, 2011a. Development Report: MYP Sciences guide (pdf). [Online] Available at:
http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [Accessed 5 November 2011].
Stephen Taylor                                                                Assessment


IB, 2011b. MYP Statistical Bulletin, June 2011 moderation session (pdf) [Note: password
protected]. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ibo.org/facts/statbulletin/mypstats/documents/myp_statistical_bulletin_june_2011.pd
f [password protected] [Accessed 12 February 2012].

IB, 2011c. MYP: the next chapter. Project report October 2011. [Online] Available at:
http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [Accessed 25 November 2011].

IB, 2012. IB Fast Facts. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibo.org/facts/fastfacts/ [password
protected] [Accessed 20 February 2012].

Lohman, D.F., 2009. The Contextual Assessment of Talent. In Vantassel-Baska, J. Leading
Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr. Joyce Vantassel-Baska. Accessed online at
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/The_Contextual_Assessment_of_Talent.pdf ed.
Waco, Texas, USA: Prufrock Press. pp.229-41.

Messick, S., 1995. Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences From Persons'
Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry Into Score Meaning. American Psychologist,
50(9), p.741–749.

Morrison, N., 2009. GCSE your time is up. [Online] Available at:
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6012334 [Accessed 12 February 2012].
Moss, P., Girard, B. & Haniford, L., 2006. Validity in edcuational assesssment. Review of
Research in Education (http://rre.sagepub.com/content/30/1/109.full.pdf+html), 30(1), pp.109-62.

Nicolson, M. & Hannah, L., 2010. History of the Middle Years Programme (pdf). [Online]
Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [Accessed 14 February 2012].

Nicolson, Malcolm. Personal email correspondences. January 16-February 26 2012.

O'Connor, K., 2011. A repair kit for grading/ 15 fixes for broken grades - 2nd Ed.. Boston:
Pearson Education.

OFQUAL, 2011. General Conditions of Recognition. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2011-05-16-general-conditions-of-recognition.pdf?Itemid=111
[Accessed 12 February 2012].

Rankin, Sean. Personal email correspondences regarding sciences assessment. January 16-
February 28 2012.

Thompson, J. & Hayden, M., 2011. The Middle Years Programme. In Thompson, J. & Hayden,
M. Taking the MYP forward. Melton, UK: John Catt Educational. pp.13-18.

Wikström, C., 2005. Grade stability in a criterion-referenced grading system: a Swedish example..
Assessment in Education, 12(2), pp.125-44.
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                           Assessment


                                                                         Appendices
Appendix 1: Aims and objectives of the MYP sciences. Taken from the science subject guide
(IB, 2010a)

Aims	
  
The	
  aims	
  of	
  any	
  MYP	
  subject	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  personal	
  project	
  state	
  in	
  a	
  general	
  way	
  what	
  the	
  teacher	
  may	
  expect	
  
to	
  teach	
  or	
  do,	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  student	
  may	
  expect	
  to	
  experience	
  or	
  learn.	
  In	
  addition,	
  they	
  suggest	
  how	
  the	
  
student	
  may	
  be	
  changed	
  by	
  the	
  learning	
  experience.	
  
The	
  aims	
  of	
  the	
  teaching	
  and	
  study	
  of	
  MYP	
  sciences	
  are	
  to	
  encourage	
  and	
  enable	
  students	
  to:	
  
1.        develop	
  curiosity,	
  interest	
  and	
  enjoyment	
  towards	
  science	
  and	
  its	
  methods	
  of	
  inquiry	
  
2.        acquire	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  and	
  understanding	
  
3.        communicate	
  scientific	
  ideas,	
  arguments	
  and	
  practical	
  experiences	
  effectively	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  ways	
  
4.        develop	
  experimental	
  and	
  investigative	
  skills	
  to	
  design	
  and	
  carry	
  out	
  scientific	
  investigations	
  and	
  to	
  
          evaluate	
  evidence	
  to	
  draw	
  a	
  conclusion	
  
5.        develop	
  critical,	
  creative	
  and	
  inquiring	
  minds	
  that	
  pose	
  questions,	
  solve	
  problems,	
  construct	
  
          explanations,	
  judge	
  arguments	
  and	
  make	
  informed	
  decisions	
  in	
  scientific	
  and	
  other	
  contexts	
  
6.        develop	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  possibilities	
  and	
  limitations	
  of	
  science	
  and	
  appreciate	
  that	
  scientific	
  
          knowledge	
  is	
  evolving	
  through	
  collaborative	
  activity	
  locally	
  and	
  internationally	
  
7.        appreciate	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  science	
  and	
  technology	
  and	
  their	
  role	
  in	
  society	
  
8.        develop	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  moral,	
  ethical,	
  social,	
  economic,	
  political,	
  cultural	
  and	
  environmental	
  
          implications	
  of	
  the	
  practice	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  science	
  and	
  technology	
  
9.        observe	
  safety	
  rules	
  and	
  practices	
  to	
  ensure	
  a	
  safe	
  working	
  environment	
  during	
  scientific	
  activities	
  
10.       engender	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  and	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  effective	
  collaboration	
  during	
  scientific	
  
          activities.	
  
	
  
Objectives	
  
The	
  objectives	
  of	
  any	
  MYP	
  subject	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  personal	
  project	
  state	
  the	
  specific	
  targets	
  that	
  are	
  set	
  for	
  
learning	
  in	
  the	
  subject.	
  They	
  define	
  what	
  the	
  student	
  will	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  accomplish	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  studying	
  the	
  
subject.	
  
These	
  objectives	
  relate	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  assessment	
  criteria	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  “Sciences	
  assessment	
  criteria”	
  section.	
  
	
  
A	
       One	
  world	
  
This	
  objective	
  refers	
  to	
  enabling	
  students	
  to	
  gain	
  a	
  better	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  science	
  in	
  society.	
  
Students	
  should	
  be	
  aware	
  that	
  science	
  is	
  a	
  global	
  endeavour	
  and	
  that	
  its	
  development	
  and	
  applications	
  can	
  
have	
  consequences	
  for	
  our	
  lives.	
  
One	
  world	
  should	
  provide	
  students	
  with	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  critically	
  assess	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  scientific	
  
developments	
  and	
  their	
  applications	
  to	
  local	
  and/or	
  global	
  issues.	
  
At	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  course,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to:	
  
•        explain	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  science	
  is	
  applied	
  and	
  used	
  to	
  address	
  specific	
  problems	
  or	
  issues	
  
•        discuss	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  science	
  and	
  its	
  application	
  in	
  solving	
  problems	
  or	
  issues	
  
•        discuss	
  and	
  evaluate	
  the	
  moral,	
  ethical,	
  social,	
  economic,	
  political,	
  cultural	
  and	
  environmental	
  
         implications	
  of	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  science	
  and	
  its	
  application	
  in	
  solving	
  specific	
  problems	
  or	
  issues.	
  
	
  
B	
       Communication	
  in	
  science	
  
This	
  objective	
  refers	
  to	
  enabling	
  students	
  to	
  become	
  competent	
  and	
  confident	
  when	
  communicating	
  
information	
  in	
  science.	
  Students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  use	
  scientific	
  language	
  correctly	
  and	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  
communication	
  modes	
  and	
  formats	
  as	
  appropriate.	
  Students	
  should	
  be	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  
acknowledging	
  and	
  appropriately	
  referencing	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  others	
  when	
  communicating	
  in	
  science.	
  
	
  
At	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  course,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to:	
  
•        use	
  scientific	
  language	
  correctly	
  
•        use	
  appropriate	
  communication	
  modes	
  such	
  as	
  verbal	
  (oral,	
  written),	
  visual	
  (graphic,	
  symbolic)	
  and	
  
         communication	
  formats	
  (laboratory	
  reports,	
  essays,	
  presentations)	
  to	
  effectively	
  communicate	
  theories,	
  
         ideas	
  and	
  findings	
  in	
  science	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                        Assessment


•       acknowledge	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  others	
  and	
  the	
  sources	
  of	
  information	
  used	
  by	
  appropriately	
  documenting	
  
        them	
  using	
  a	
  recognized	
  referencing	
  system.	
  
	
  
C	
       Knowledge	
  and	
  understanding	
  of	
  science	
  
This	
  objective	
  refers	
  to	
  enabling	
  students	
  to	
  understand	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  (facts,	
  ideas,	
  concepts,	
  processes,	
  
laws,	
  principles,	
  models	
  and	
  theories)	
  and	
  to	
  apply	
  it	
  to	
  construct	
  scientific	
  explanations,	
  solve	
  problems	
  and	
  
formulate	
  scientifically	
  supported	
  arguments.	
  
	
  

At	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  course,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to:	
  
•        recall	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  and	
  use	
  scientific	
  understanding	
  to	
  construct	
  scientific	
  explanations	
  
•        apply	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  and	
  understanding	
  to	
  solve	
  problems	
  set	
  in	
  familiar	
  and	
  unfamiliar	
  situations	
  
•        critically	
  analyse	
  and	
  evaluate	
  information	
  to	
  make	
  judgments	
  supported	
  by	
  scientific	
  understanding.	
  
	
  
D	
       Scientific	
  inquiry	
  
While	
  the	
  scientific	
  method	
  may	
  take	
  on	
  a	
  wide	
  variety	
  of	
  approaches,	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  emphasis	
  on	
  experimental	
  
work	
  that	
  characterizes	
  MYP	
  scientific	
  inquiry.	
  
This	
  objective	
  refers	
  to	
  enabling	
  students	
  to	
  develop	
  intellectual	
  and	
  practical	
  skills	
  to	
  design	
  and	
  carry	
  out	
  
scientific	
  investigations	
  independently	
  and	
  to	
  evaluate	
  the	
  experimental	
  design	
  (method).	
  
	
  

At	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  course,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to:	
  
•        state	
  a	
  focused	
  problem	
  or	
  research	
  question	
  to	
  be	
  tested	
  by	
  a	
  scientific	
  investigation	
  
•        formulate	
  a	
  testable	
  hypothesis	
  and	
  explain	
  it	
  using	
  scientific	
  reasoning	
  
•        design	
  and	
  carry	
  out	
  scientific	
  investigations	
  that	
  include	
  variables	
  and	
  controls,	
  material	
  and/or	
  
         equipment	
  needed,	
  a	
  method	
  to	
  be	
  followed	
  and	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  data	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  collected	
  and	
  
         processed	
  
•        evaluate	
  the	
  validity	
  and	
  reliability	
  of	
  the	
  method	
  
•        judge	
  the	
  validity	
  of	
  a	
  hypothesis	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  the	
  investigation	
  suggest	
  improvements	
  to	
  
         the	
  method	
  or	
  further	
  inquiry,	
  when	
  relevant.	
  
	
  
E	
  	
  Processing	
  data	
  
This	
  objective	
  refers	
  to	
  enabling	
  students	
  to	
  collect,	
  process	
  and	
  interpret	
  sufficient	
  qualitative	
  and/or	
  
quantitative	
  data	
  to	
  draw	
  appropriate	
  conclusions.	
  Students	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  develop	
  analytical	
  thinking	
  skills	
  
to	
  interpret	
  data	
  and	
  judge	
  the	
  reliability	
  of	
  the	
  data.	
  
	
  


At	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  course,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to:	
  
•        collect	
  and	
  record	
  data	
  using	
  units	
  of	
  measurement	
  as	
  and	
  when	
  appropriate	
  	
   	
  
•        organize,	
  transform	
  and	
  present	
  data	
  using	
  numerical	
  and	
  visual	
  forms	
  	
  
•        analyse	
  and	
  interpret	
  data	
  	
  
•        draw	
  conclusions	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  data	
  and	
  supported	
  by	
  scientific	
  reasoning.	
  
	
  
F	
       Attitudes	
  in	
  science	
  
This	
  objective	
  refers	
  to	
  encouraging	
  students	
  to	
  develop	
  safe,	
  responsible	
  and	
  collaborative	
  working	
  practices	
  
in	
  practical	
  science.	
  
	
  


During	
  the	
  course,	
  students	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to:	
  
•    work	
  safely	
  and	
  use	
  material	
  and	
  equipment	
  competently	
  	
  
•    work	
  responsibly	
  with	
  regards	
  to	
  the	
  living	
  and	
  non-­‐living	
  environment	
  	
  
•    work	
  effectively	
  as	
  individuals	
  and	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  group	
  by	
  collaborating	
  with	
  others.
•
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                                             Assessment


Appendix 2: Grade-level descriptors in the Middle Years Programme

Grade	
   Descriptor	
  
   1	
         Minimal	
  achievement	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  objectives.	
  
               Very	
   limited	
   achievement	
   against	
   all	
   the	
   objectives.	
   The	
   student	
   has	
   difficulty	
   in	
   understanding	
   the	
   required	
  
   2	
         knowledge	
  and	
  skills	
  and	
  is	
  unable	
  to	
  apply	
  them	
  fully	
  in	
  normal	
  situations,	
  even	
  with	
  support.	
  
               Limited	
   achievement	
   against	
   most	
   of	
   the	
   objectives,	
   or	
   clear	
   difficulties	
   in	
   some	
   areas.	
   The	
   student	
  
   3	
         demonstrates	
  a	
  limited	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  required	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills	
  and	
  is	
  only	
  able	
  to	
  apply	
   them	
  fully	
  
               in	
  normal	
  situations	
  with	
  support.	
  
               A	
  good	
  general	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  required	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills,	
  and	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  apply	
  them	
  effectively	
  in	
  
   4	
         normal	
  situations.	
  There	
  is	
  occasional	
  evidence	
  of	
  the	
  skills	
  of	
  analysis,	
  synthesis	
  and	
  evaluation.	
  
               A	
  consistent	
   and	
   thorough	
   understanding	
  of	
  the	
  required	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills,	
  and	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  apply	
  them	
  in	
  
   5	
         a	
   variety	
   of	
   situations.	
   The	
   student	
   generally	
   shows	
   evidence	
   of	
   analysis,	
   synthesis	
   and	
   evaluation	
   where	
  
               appropriate	
  and	
  occasionally	
  demonstrates	
  originality	
  and	
  insight.	
  
               A	
   consistent	
   and	
   thorough	
   understanding	
   of	
   the	
   required	
   knowledge	
   and	
   skills,	
   and	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   apply	
   them	
   in	
  
   6	
         a	
   wide	
   variety	
   of	
   situations.	
   Consistent	
   evidence	
   of	
   analysis,	
   synthesis	
   and	
   evaluation	
   is	
   shown	
   where	
  
               appropriate.	
  The	
  student	
  generally	
  demonstrates	
  originality	
  and	
  insight.	
  

               A	
  consistent	
  and	
  thorough	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  required	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills,	
  and	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  apply	
  them	
  
               almost	
   faultlessly	
   in	
   a	
   wide	
   variety	
   of	
   situations.	
   Consistent	
   evidence	
   of	
   analysis,	
   synthesis	
   and	
   evaluation	
   is	
  
   7	
         shown	
  where	
  appropriate.	
  The	
  student	
  consistently	
  demonstrates	
  originality	
  and	
  insight	
  and	
  always	
  produces	
  
               work	
  of	
  high	
  quality.	
  

Taken	
  from	
  the	
  MYP	
  Coordinator’s	
  Handbook	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  pp.59-­‐60)	
  



Appendix 3: The best-fit approach (clarification from the IB)

           “The	
  descriptors	
  for	
  each	
  criterion	
  are	
  hierarchical.	
  When	
  assessing	
  a	
  student’s	
  work,	
  teachers	
  
           should	
  read	
  the	
  descriptors	
  (starting	
  with	
  level	
  0)	
  until	
  they	
  reach	
  a	
  descriptor	
  that	
  describes	
  
           an	
  achievement	
  level	
  that	
  the	
  work	
  being	
  assessed	
  has	
  not	
  attained.	
  The	
  work	
  is	
  therefore	
  
           best	
  described	
  by	
  the	
  preceding	
  descriptor.	
  
           	
  
           Where	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  clearly	
  evident	
  which	
  level	
  descriptor	
  should	
  apply,	
  teachers	
  must	
  use	
  their	
  
           judgment	
  to	
  select	
  the	
  descriptor	
  that	
  best	
  matches	
  the	
  student’s	
  work	
  overall.	
  The	
  “best-­‐fit”	
  
           approach	
  allows	
  teachers	
  to	
  select	
  the	
  achievement	
  level	
  that	
  best	
  describes	
  the	
  piece	
  of	
  work	
  
           being	
  assessed.	
  
           	
  
           If	
  the	
  work	
  is	
  a	
  strong	
  example	
  of	
  achievement	
  in	
  a	
  band,	
  the	
  teacher	
  should	
  give	
  it	
  the	
  higher	
  
           achievement	
  level	
  in	
  the	
  band.	
  If	
  the	
  work	
  is	
  a	
  weak	
  example	
  of	
  achievement	
  in	
  that	
  band,	
  the	
  
           teacher	
  should	
  give	
  it	
  the	
  lower	
  achievement	
  level	
  in	
  the	
  band.”	
  
                                                                                                                               (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.25)
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                                    Assessment


       Appendix 4: A comparison of the aims of the sciences under the current MYP model and after
       the proposed changes of the Next Chapter.

Current	
  MYP	
  Sciences	
  Guide	
  (IB,	
  2010a,	
  p.4)	
                                       Proposed	
  changes	
  (IB,	
  2011,	
  p.6)	
  
The	
  aims	
  of	
  the	
  teaching	
  and	
  study	
  of	
  MYP	
  sciences	
  are	
  to	
          The	
  aims	
  of	
  the	
  teaching	
  and	
  study	
  of	
  MYP	
  sciences	
  are	
  to	
  
encourage	
  and	
  enable	
  students	
  to:	
                                                       encourage	
  and	
  enable	
  students	
  to:	
  
1.	
       develop	
  curiosity,	
  interest	
  and	
  enjoyment	
  towards	
                         •        understand	
  and	
  appreciate	
  science	
  and	
  its	
  implications	
  
science	
  and	
  its	
  methods	
  of	
  inquiry	
                                                            through	
  the	
  areas	
  of	
  interaction	
  
2.	
       acquire	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  and	
  understanding	
                               •        consider	
  science	
  as	
  a	
  human	
  endeavour	
  with	
  benefits	
  and	
  
3.	
       communicate	
  scientific	
  ideas,	
  arguments	
  and	
  practical	
                              limitations	
  
experiences	
  effectively	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  ways	
                                      •        cultivate	
  analytical,	
  inquiring	
  and	
  flexible	
  minds	
  that	
  pose	
  
4.	
       develop	
  experimental	
  and	
  investigative	
  skills	
  to	
  design	
                         questions,	
  solve	
  problems,	
  construct	
  explanations	
  and	
  
and	
  carry	
  out	
  scientific	
  investigations	
  and	
  to	
  evaluate	
  evidence	
                     judge	
  arguments	
  
to	
  draw	
  a	
  conclusion	
                                                                       •        develop	
  skills	
  to	
  design	
  and	
  perform	
  investigations,	
  
5.	
       develop	
  critical,	
  creative	
  and	
  inquiring	
  minds	
  that	
  pose	
                     evaluate	
  evidence	
  and	
  reach	
  conclusions	
  	
  
questions,	
  solve	
  problems,	
  construct	
  explanations,	
  judge	
                             •        engender	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  effectively	
  
arguments	
  and	
  make	
  informed	
  decisions	
  in	
  scientific	
  and	
  other	
                        collaborate	
  and	
  communicate	
  
contexts	
                                                                                            •        apply	
  language	
  skills	
  and	
  knowledge	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  real-­‐
6.	
       develop	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  possibilities	
  and	
  limitations	
  of	
                    life	
  contexts	
  
science	
  and	
  appreciate	
  that	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  is	
  evolving	
                   •        demonstrate	
  sensitivity	
  towards	
  the	
  living	
  and	
  non-­‐living	
  
through	
  collaborative	
  activity	
  locally	
  and	
  internationally	
                                    environments	
  
7.	
       appreciate	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  science	
  and	
                           •        reflect	
  on	
  learning	
  experiences	
  and	
  make	
  informed	
  
technology	
  and	
  their	
  role	
  in	
  society	
                                                          choices	
  
8.	
       develop	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  moral,	
  ethical,	
  social,	
  
economic,	
  political,	
  cultural	
  and	
  environmental	
  implications	
  of	
  
the	
  practice	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  science	
  and	
  technology	
  
9.	
       observe	
  safety	
  rules	
  and	
  practices	
  to	
  ensure	
  a	
  safe	
  
working	
  environment	
  during	
  scientific	
  activities	
  
10.	
            engender	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  and	
  the	
  value	
  
of	
  effective	
  collaboration	
  during	
  scientific	
  activities.	
  
Stephen Taylor                                                                                                                   Assessment


      Appendix 5: Summary of assessment-related changes to the MYP sciences programme under
      the Next Chapter.

Current	
  Sciences	
  Guide.	
  (IB,	
  2010a)	
                                      Proposed	
  changes	
  under	
  the	
  Next	
  Chapter.	
  (IB,	
  2011)	
  
Six	
  assessment	
  criteria	
                                                        Four	
  assessment	
  criteria	
  
Zero-­‐band	
  plus	
  three	
  dual	
  bands	
  of	
  achievement-­‐                  Zero-­‐band	
  plus	
  four	
  bands	
  of	
  achievement-­‐level	
  
level	
  descriptors	
  (0,	
  1-­‐2,	
  3-­‐4,	
  5-­‐6)	
                            descriptors	
  (0,	
  1,	
  2,	
  3,	
  4	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  working	
  guide	
  
                                                                                       for	
  pilot	
  schools)*.	
  	
  
Command	
  terms	
  defined	
  in	
  the	
  subject	
  guide	
  and	
                  Command	
  terms	
  defined	
  across	
  the	
  whole	
  MYP	
  and	
  
used	
  in	
  achievement-­‐level	
  descriptors.	
  	
                                used	
  in	
  a	
  more	
  focused	
  manner	
  in	
  achievement-­‐level	
  
                                                                                       descriptors.	
  	
  
Attitudes	
  in	
  science	
  criterion	
  in	
  use.	
  	
                            Attitudes	
  in	
  science	
  criterion	
  removed.	
  	
  
One	
  world	
  and	
  Communication	
  in	
  science	
  criteria	
  in	
              Science	
  in	
  the	
  world	
  criterion	
  merges	
  the	
  aims	
  of	
  One	
  
use.	
  	
                                                                             world	
  and	
  Communication	
  in	
  science.	
  	
  
Assessment	
  of	
  subject	
  content	
  acquisition	
  primarily	
   Using	
  knowledge	
  criterion	
  to	
  assess	
  subject	
  content	
  
through	
  Knowledge	
  and	
  understanding	
  criterion.	
                           acquisition.	
  Key	
  proposal	
  that	
  this	
  “must	
  only	
  be	
  
Modes	
  of	
  assessment	
  open	
  to	
  teachers.	
  	
                             assessed	
  through	
  tests	
  or	
  exams”	
  (IB,	
  2011,	
  p.13)	
  
Lab	
  and	
  investigative	
  work	
  assessed	
  through	
                           Lab	
  and	
  investigative	
  work	
  assessed	
  through	
  Inquiring	
  
Scientific	
  inquiry	
  and	
  Processing	
  data	
  criteria.	
  	
                  and	
  designing	
  and	
  processing	
  and	
  evaluating	
  criteria.	
  	
  
      *This	
  change	
  is	
  noted	
  in	
  a	
  copy	
  of	
  an	
  assessment	
  rubric	
  from	
  the	
  guide	
  for	
  pilot	
  schools,	
  shared	
  by	
  
      Sean	
  Rankin,	
  Curriculum	
  and	
  Assessment	
  Manager	
  for	
  the	
  MYP	
  sciences.	
  	
  
Assessment Assignment: Bath MA International Education
Assessment Assignment: Bath MA International Education

Más contenido relacionado

Was ist angesagt?

Curriclum types
Curriclum typesCurriclum types
Curriclum typesdsmru
 
Item difficulty and discrimination
Item difficulty and discriminationItem difficulty and discrimination
Item difficulty and discriminationUrlin May Sible
 
Curriculum Development Models
Curriculum  Development  ModelsCurriculum  Development  Models
Curriculum Development ModelsDr.Kumuda Gururao
 
Research Article Review
Research Article ReviewResearch Article Review
Research Article ReviewMartina Henke
 
Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2
Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2
Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2wikioogle
 
Curriculum models
Curriculum modelsCurriculum models
Curriculum modelsKt Mosinyi
 
Curriculum ppt 1
Curriculum ppt 1Curriculum ppt 1
Curriculum ppt 1Magdy Aly
 
Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)
Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)
Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)mtlobrido
 
NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT SANA FATIMA
 
Theories of curriculum design
Theories of curriculum designTheories of curriculum design
Theories of curriculum designmursyidalam
 
3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL BHS IND SMA.pptx
3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL  BHS IND SMA.pptx3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL  BHS IND SMA.pptx
3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL BHS IND SMA.pptxssuserf2021d1
 
Curriculum Ideologies
Curriculum IdeologiesCurriculum Ideologies
Curriculum IdeologiesCt Hajar
 
Models of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum Model
Models of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum ModelModels of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum Model
Models of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum ModelSamir (G. Husain)
 
Smart School Roadmap
Smart School RoadmapSmart School Roadmap
Smart School RoadmapMaria Ting
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Curriclum types
Curriclum typesCurriclum types
Curriclum types
 
Item difficulty and discrimination
Item difficulty and discriminationItem difficulty and discrimination
Item difficulty and discrimination
 
Curriculum Development Models
Curriculum  Development  ModelsCurriculum  Development  Models
Curriculum Development Models
 
Research Article Review
Research Article ReviewResearch Article Review
Research Article Review
 
Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2
Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2
Www.kpss10.com eğitimde hedefler 2
 
Curriculum models
Curriculum modelsCurriculum models
Curriculum models
 
Curriculum ppt 1
Curriculum ppt 1Curriculum ppt 1
Curriculum ppt 1
 
Curriculum and Instruction Class # 1
Curriculum and Instruction Class # 1Curriculum and Instruction Class # 1
Curriculum and Instruction Class # 1
 
Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)
Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)
Manelyn L. Mananap Thesis (Chapter 1)
 
SLO ppt 1
SLO ppt 1SLO ppt 1
SLO ppt 1
 
Authentic assessment
Authentic assessmentAuthentic assessment
Authentic assessment
 
NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
NON-SCIENTIFIC MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
 
Curriculum theory
Curriculum theoryCurriculum theory
Curriculum theory
 
Evaluation approach
Evaluation approachEvaluation approach
Evaluation approach
 
Theories of curriculum design
Theories of curriculum designTheories of curriculum design
Theories of curriculum design
 
3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL BHS IND SMA.pptx
3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL  BHS IND SMA.pptx3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL  BHS IND SMA.pptx
3. REV.FINAL PENYUSUNAN US DAN AAS MAPEL BHS IND SMA.pptx
 
Curriculum Ideologies
Curriculum IdeologiesCurriculum Ideologies
Curriculum Ideologies
 
Planning for Assessment
Planning for AssessmentPlanning for Assessment
Planning for Assessment
 
Models of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum Model
Models of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum ModelModels of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum Model
Models of curriculum || Curriculum model || Tyler's Curriculum Model
 
Smart School Roadmap
Smart School RoadmapSmart School Roadmap
Smart School Roadmap
 

Andere mochten auch

How International Is You School?
How International Is You School? How International Is You School?
How International Is You School? Stephen Taylor
 
MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]
MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]
MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]Stephen Taylor
 
How International Is Our School? MA Dissertation
How International Is Our School? MA DissertationHow International Is Our School? MA Dissertation
How International Is Our School? MA DissertationStephen Taylor
 
MYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C Rubric
MYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C RubricMYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C Rubric
MYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C RubricBrad Kremer
 
MYP Assessment Sept 2013
MYP Assessment Sept 2013MYP Assessment Sept 2013
MYP Assessment Sept 2013lissecondary
 
MYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessment
MYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessmentMYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessment
MYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessmentPaula Ledesma
 
Myp assessment
Myp assessmentMyp assessment
Myp assessmentKris
 
Key concept global interactions
Key concept global interactionsKey concept global interactions
Key concept global interactionsPaula Ledesma
 
Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13
Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13
Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13Stephen Taylor
 
Red Bull Stratos: Freefall Physics
Red Bull Stratos: Freefall PhysicsRed Bull Stratos: Freefall Physics
Red Bull Stratos: Freefall PhysicsStephen Taylor
 
One World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing Frame
One World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing FrameOne World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing Frame
One World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing FrameStephen Taylor
 
One World: Think Global, Act Local
One World: Think Global, Act LocalOne World: Think Global, Act Local
One World: Think Global, Act LocalStephen Taylor
 
Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)
Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)
Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)Stephen Taylor
 
Reactions & Formulas Lab Sequence
Reactions & Formulas Lab SequenceReactions & Formulas Lab Sequence
Reactions & Formulas Lab SequenceStephen Taylor
 
A Pragmatic Approach to Inquiry
A Pragmatic Approach to InquiryA Pragmatic Approach to Inquiry
A Pragmatic Approach to InquiryStephen Taylor
 
Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."
Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."
Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."Stephen Taylor
 
Human Subject Consent Form
Human Subject Consent FormHuman Subject Consent Form
Human Subject Consent FormStephen Taylor
 
Qr Orienteering: Map and QR Codes
Qr Orienteering: Map and QR CodesQr Orienteering: Map and QR Codes
Qr Orienteering: Map and QR CodesStephen Taylor
 

Andere mochten auch (20)

How International Is You School?
How International Is You School? How International Is You School?
How International Is You School?
 
MYP of IB
MYP of IBMYP of IB
MYP of IB
 
MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]
MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]
MYP: Mind The Gap [MA Assignment]
 
How International Is Our School? MA Dissertation
How International Is Our School? MA DissertationHow International Is Our School? MA Dissertation
How International Is Our School? MA Dissertation
 
MYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C Rubric
MYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C RubricMYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C Rubric
MYP Science Year 4-5 Criterion C Rubric
 
MYP Assessment Sept 2013
MYP Assessment Sept 2013MYP Assessment Sept 2013
MYP Assessment Sept 2013
 
MYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessment
MYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessmentMYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessment
MYP Individuals and Society Criteria of assessment
 
Myp assessment
Myp assessmentMyp assessment
Myp assessment
 
Key concept global interactions
Key concept global interactionsKey concept global interactions
Key concept global interactions
 
Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13
Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13
Chemistry Lab Manual 2012-13
 
Red Bull Stratos: Freefall Physics
Red Bull Stratos: Freefall PhysicsRed Bull Stratos: Freefall Physics
Red Bull Stratos: Freefall Physics
 
MYP Assessment Workshop for Parents
MYP Assessment Workshop for ParentsMYP Assessment Workshop for Parents
MYP Assessment Workshop for Parents
 
One World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing Frame
One World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing FrameOne World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing Frame
One World Coversheet, Checklist, Writing Frame
 
One World: Think Global, Act Local
One World: Think Global, Act LocalOne World: Think Global, Act Local
One World: Think Global, Act Local
 
Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)
Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)
Essential Biology 3.5 Transcription & Translation (Core)
 
Reactions & Formulas Lab Sequence
Reactions & Formulas Lab SequenceReactions & Formulas Lab Sequence
Reactions & Formulas Lab Sequence
 
A Pragmatic Approach to Inquiry
A Pragmatic Approach to InquiryA Pragmatic Approach to Inquiry
A Pragmatic Approach to Inquiry
 
Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."
Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."
Current Electricity: "I used to think... Now I think."
 
Human Subject Consent Form
Human Subject Consent FormHuman Subject Consent Form
Human Subject Consent Form
 
Qr Orienteering: Map and QR Codes
Qr Orienteering: Map and QR CodesQr Orienteering: Map and QR Codes
Qr Orienteering: Map and QR Codes
 

Ähnlich wie Assessment Assignment: Bath MA International Education

Determining student learning outcomes
Determining student learning outcomesDetermining student learning outcomes
Determining student learning outcomesFlorindaG
 
An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...
An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...
An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...Premier Publishers
 
Assessing For Learning Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...
Assessing For Learning  Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...Assessing For Learning  Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...
Assessing For Learning Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...Becky Gilbert
 
Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching practice in na...
Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching  practice in na...Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching  practice in na...
Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching practice in na...Alexander Decker
 
IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...
IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...
IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...IRJET Journal
 
Professional teaching standard 2
Professional teaching standard 2Professional teaching standard 2
Professional teaching standard 2Amie Joan Juanis
 
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exerciseAlexander Decker
 
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exerciseAlexander Decker
 
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exerciseAlexander Decker
 
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...SubmissionResearchpa
 
An Analysis Of PGCE Models Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary Phase
An Analysis Of PGCE Models  Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary PhaseAn Analysis Of PGCE Models  Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary Phase
An Analysis Of PGCE Models Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary PhaseHeather Strinden
 
Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020
Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020
Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020Brent Jones
 
Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...
Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...
Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...Mohammad Mosiur Rahman
 
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...SubmissionResearchpa
 
Organized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training Programs
Organized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training ProgramsOrganized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training Programs
Organized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training ProgramsMohammad Mosiur Rahman
 
Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met...
 Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met... Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met...
Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met...Research Journal of Education
 
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...FRANCIS SOLOMON
 

Ähnlich wie Assessment Assignment: Bath MA International Education (20)

IB Study Proposal
IB Study ProposalIB Study Proposal
IB Study Proposal
 
Determining student learning outcomes
Determining student learning outcomesDetermining student learning outcomes
Determining student learning outcomes
 
An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...
An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...
An Assessment of Professional Standards exhibited by Teacher Educators in Col...
 
Exercicio web
Exercicio webExercicio web
Exercicio web
 
Assessing For Learning Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...
Assessing For Learning  Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...Assessing For Learning  Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...
Assessing For Learning Teacher Training In Practice Involving 14 Postgraduat...
 
Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching practice in na...
Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching  practice in na...Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching  practice in na...
Assessment of attitude of education students towards teaching practice in na...
 
IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...
IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...
IRJET- Relationship between Achievement in Advanced Educational Psychology an...
 
Professional teaching standard 2
Professional teaching standard 2Professional teaching standard 2
Professional teaching standard 2
 
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
 
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
 
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
11.lecturers assessment of teaching practice exercise
 
2011 Majid
2011 Majid2011 Majid
2011 Majid
 
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
 
An Analysis Of PGCE Models Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary Phase
An Analysis Of PGCE Models  Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary PhaseAn Analysis Of PGCE Models  Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary Phase
An Analysis Of PGCE Models Key Stakeholder Perceptions From The Secondary Phase
 
Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020
Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020
Engaging Language Learners with Team-Based Learning - THT 2020
 
Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...
Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...
Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of S...
 
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
Quality assurance in Vietnam’s higher education: Insights into past and prese...
 
Organized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training Programs
Organized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training ProgramsOrganized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training Programs
Organized Hypocrisy in EFL Teacher Training Programs
 
Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met...
 Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met... Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met...
Self-Esteem and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Calabar Met...
 
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF SCHOOL BASED EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO WAEC AND NECO ...
 

Mehr von Stephen Taylor

Trivium 21C Review in International School Magazine
Trivium 21C Review in International School MagazineTrivium 21C Review in International School Magazine
Trivium 21C Review in International School MagazineStephen Taylor
 
Protein synthesis Running Dictation
Protein synthesis Running DictationProtein synthesis Running Dictation
Protein synthesis Running DictationStephen Taylor
 
A3 special issues in nutrition
A3 special issues in nutritionA3 special issues in nutrition
A3 special issues in nutritionStephen Taylor
 
One Direction Do Physics
One Direction Do PhysicsOne Direction Do Physics
One Direction Do PhysicsStephen Taylor
 
Describing Motion 2012
Describing Motion 2012Describing Motion 2012
Describing Motion 2012Stephen Taylor
 
Welcome to G10 Science!
Welcome to G10 Science! Welcome to G10 Science!
Welcome to G10 Science! Stephen Taylor
 
Rubric for Resolving Conflicts
Rubric for Resolving ConflictsRubric for Resolving Conflicts
Rubric for Resolving ConflictsStephen Taylor
 
Ideas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI's
Ideas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI'sIdeas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI's
Ideas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI'sStephen Taylor
 
One World: Scientific Solutions to Global Issues
One World: Scientific Solutions to Global IssuesOne World: Scientific Solutions to Global Issues
One World: Scientific Solutions to Global IssuesStephen Taylor
 
Concept Cartoons in Science Class
Concept Cartoons in Science ClassConcept Cartoons in Science Class
Concept Cartoons in Science ClassStephen Taylor
 

Mehr von Stephen Taylor (17)

Trivium 21C Review in International School Magazine
Trivium 21C Review in International School MagazineTrivium 21C Review in International School Magazine
Trivium 21C Review in International School Magazine
 
Protein synthesis Running Dictation
Protein synthesis Running DictationProtein synthesis Running Dictation
Protein synthesis Running Dictation
 
Cells Super Crossword
Cells Super CrosswordCells Super Crossword
Cells Super Crossword
 
A3 special issues in nutrition
A3 special issues in nutritionA3 special issues in nutrition
A3 special issues in nutrition
 
Chemistry Lab Manual
Chemistry Lab ManualChemistry Lab Manual
Chemistry Lab Manual
 
01 Nature of Biology
01 Nature of Biology01 Nature of Biology
01 Nature of Biology
 
One Direction Do Physics
One Direction Do PhysicsOne Direction Do Physics
One Direction Do Physics
 
Measurement & Error
Measurement & ErrorMeasurement & Error
Measurement & Error
 
Science Show 2012
Science Show 2012Science Show 2012
Science Show 2012
 
Describing Motion 2012
Describing Motion 2012Describing Motion 2012
Describing Motion 2012
 
Welcome to Chemistry
Welcome to ChemistryWelcome to Chemistry
Welcome to Chemistry
 
Welcome to G10 Science!
Welcome to G10 Science! Welcome to G10 Science!
Welcome to G10 Science!
 
Extended Essay Frame
Extended Essay FrameExtended Essay Frame
Extended Essay Frame
 
Rubric for Resolving Conflicts
Rubric for Resolving ConflictsRubric for Resolving Conflicts
Rubric for Resolving Conflicts
 
Ideas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI's
Ideas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI'sIdeas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI's
Ideas for integrating inquiry and differentiation with AOI's
 
One World: Scientific Solutions to Global Issues
One World: Scientific Solutions to Global IssuesOne World: Scientific Solutions to Global Issues
One World: Scientific Solutions to Global Issues
 
Concept Cartoons in Science Class
Concept Cartoons in Science ClassConcept Cartoons in Science Class
Concept Cartoons in Science Class
 

Último

Plant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptx
Plant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptxPlant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptx
Plant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptxHimansu10
 
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced StudLEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced StudDr. Bruce A. Johnson
 
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
Dhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian Poetics
Dhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian PoeticsDhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian Poetics
Dhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian PoeticsDhatriParmar
 
LEAD5623 The Economics of Community Coll
LEAD5623 The Economics of Community CollLEAD5623 The Economics of Community Coll
LEAD5623 The Economics of Community CollDr. Bruce A. Johnson
 
2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...
2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...
2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...Marlene Maheu
 
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptxRiti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptxDhatriParmar
 
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
The basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptxheathfieldcps1
 
EDD8524 The Future of Educational Leader
EDD8524 The Future of Educational LeaderEDD8524 The Future of Educational Leader
EDD8524 The Future of Educational LeaderDr. Bruce A. Johnson
 
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in PharmacyASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in PharmacySumit Tiwari
 
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx
3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx
3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptxmary850239
 
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptxMetabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptxDr. Santhosh Kumar. N
 
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdfThe First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdfdogden2
 
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...AKSHAYMAGAR17
 
3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx
3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx
3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptxmary850239
 

Último (20)

Plant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptx
Plant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptxPlant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptx
Plant Tissue culture., Plasticity, Totipotency, pptx
 
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced StudLEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
 
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (FRIE...
 
Least Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research Methodology
Least Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research MethodologyLeast Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research Methodology
Least Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research Methodology
 
ANOVA Parametric test: Biostatics and Research Methodology
ANOVA Parametric test: Biostatics and Research MethodologyANOVA Parametric test: Biostatics and Research Methodology
ANOVA Parametric test: Biostatics and Research Methodology
 
Problems on Mean,Mode,Median Standard Deviation
Problems on Mean,Mode,Median Standard DeviationProblems on Mean,Mode,Median Standard Deviation
Problems on Mean,Mode,Median Standard Deviation
 
Dhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian Poetics
Dhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian PoeticsDhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian Poetics
Dhavni Theory by Anandvardhana Indian Poetics
 
LEAD5623 The Economics of Community Coll
LEAD5623 The Economics of Community CollLEAD5623 The Economics of Community Coll
LEAD5623 The Economics of Community Coll
 
2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...
2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...
2024 March 11, Telehealth Billing- Current Telehealth CPT Codes & Telehealth ...
 
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptxRiti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
 
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO ĐƠN VỊ BÀI HỌC - CẢ NĂM - CÓ FILE NGHE (GLOB...
 
The basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 8pptx.pptx
 
EDD8524 The Future of Educational Leader
EDD8524 The Future of Educational LeaderEDD8524 The Future of Educational Leader
EDD8524 The Future of Educational Leader
 
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in PharmacyASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
 
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
 
3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx
3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx
3.14.24 Gender Discrimination and Gender Inequity.pptx
 
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptxMetabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
 
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdfThe First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
 
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
 
3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx
3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx
3.12.24 The Social Construction of Gender.pptx
 

Assessment Assignment: Bath MA International Education

  • 1. Stephen Taylor Assessment Survival of the Fittest for Purpose?   Exploring  reliability  and  validity  in  criterion-­‐related  assessment  of   the  IB  Middle  Years  Programme  sciences  as  it  moves  into  the  Next   Chapter.         Stephen  Taylor   MA  International  Education   University  of  Bath   (@IBiologyStephen)       This  assignment  was  submitted  as  part  of  my  MA  coursework  in  February  2012.  It  is  uploaded  here   (with  permission)  to  be  included  as  part  of  my  professional  development  and  reflective  portfolio  at   is.gd/IBiologyReflections.  
  • 2. Stephen Taylor Assessment Introduction   The  International  Baccalaureate’s  Middle  Years  Programme  (MYP)  is  going  through  an   exciting  period  of  reinvention.  Dubbed  “MYP:  The  Next  Chapter,”  this  programme  overhaul   will  affect  all  MYP  teachers,  students  and  school  leaders  over  the  coming  years  (IB,  2011a).   The  Next  Chapter  breaks  from  the  usual  curriculum  review  cycle,  which  runs  on  a  per-­‐ subject  group  basis,  and  will  result  in  new  subject  guides,  assessment  criteria  and  practices   being  published  for  every  subject  simultaneously.    Due  to  be  officially  launched  in  2014,   subject  and  assessment  reviews  and  trials  are  currently  ongoing  in  schools  around  the  globe.         In  this  essay,  I  will  explore  the  implications  of  key  changes  proposed  under  the  Next  Chapter   and  their  implications,  in  terms  of  validity  and  reliability,  of  assessment  of  the  sciences.  I  will   attempt  to  evaluate  these  proposals  and  make  recommendations  for  teachers  and  the  IB  on   steps  that  may  make  for  a  smoother  transition  from  principles  into  practice.           Structure  and  assessment  of  the  IB  Middle  Years  Programme   The  IB  MYP  is  a  rapidly  growing  educational  framework  for  middle  school-­‐aged  students   (11-­‐16  years  of  age).  With  its  roots  as  a  ‘pre-­‐IB’  programme  in  Africa  in  the  1980’s,  it  has   developed  into  a  four  or  five-­‐year  programme,  acting  not  only  as  a  precursor  to  the  Diploma   Programme  (its  original  intended  purpose),  but  also  as  an  interface  with  the  Primary  Years   Programme.  (Nicolson  &  Hannah,  2010).  The  holistic  nature  of  the  programme  is  intended   to  develop  both  concepts  and  skills  in  its  learners,  developing  not  only  knowledge  and   understanding  of  the  eight  subject  groups,  but   also  allowing  students  to  become  versed  in  the   learning  skills  required  to  be  successful  in  the   IB  Diploma,  university  and  beyond.  (Nicolson  &   Hannah,  2010).       The  core  of  the  MYP  is  similar  in  nature  to  that   of  the  Diploma  Programme,  with  the  IB’s   Learner  Profile  focusing  on  the  desired   attributes  of  learners.  The  five  Areas  of   Figure  1:  The  current  MYP  model.  Taken  from  A  History  of  the   interaction  form  contexts  for  learning  within   Middle  Years  Programme  (Appendix)  (Nicolson  &  Hannah,  2010)  
  • 3. Stephen Taylor Assessment the  curriculum.  Community  and  service  is  analogous  to  the  Creativity,  action  and  service   component  of  the  Diploma  Programme.  Approaches  to  learning,  another  Area  of  interaction,   highlights  the  development  of  study  and  research  skills  (IB,  2009)  and  also  allows  for  some   introduction  to  the  Theory  of  knowledge  component  of  the  Diploma  Programme  (Nicolson   &  Hannah,  2010).  A  culminating,  student-­‐directed  task,  the  Personal  Project,  aims  to   facilitate  student  exploration  in  a  similar  way  to  the  Diploma  Programme’s  Extended  Essay.         Growth  and  development  in  the  MYP:  Why  the  Next  Chapter?   From  407  schools  running  the  MYP  in  2007,  there  are  now  729  MYP  schools  worldwide  (IB,   2011a,  p.4).  This  rapid  growth  in  the  programme  could  be  due  a  number  of  factors,  such  as   a  greater  demand  for  international  education  in  developed  and  developing  nations  and  a   increasing  ‘brand  recognition’  of  the  International  Baccalaureate  in  the  education  sector.   The  International  Baccalaureate  Organisation  has  three  regions.  The  Americas  (IBA)   encompasses  the  USA,  Canada  and  South  America  and  in  recent  years  has  been  the  fastest-­‐ growing  market,  with  over  71%  of  IB  schools  running  the  MYP  (IB,  2011a,  p.6).  Growth  is   slower  but  steady  in  the  IB’s  other  two  regions,  Africa,  Europe  and  the  Middle  East  (IBAEM),   and  Asia-­‐Pacific  (IBAP).       Despite  this  growth  in  the  MYP,  the  proportion  of  schools  choosing  to  moderate  their   assessment  is  decreasing:  from  38.8%  (155/407  schools)  of  June-­‐session  schools  registering   candidates  for  moderation  in  2007  to  just  22.91%  (167/729  schools)  in  2011  (IB,  2011a).   Although  in  real  terms  this  represents  a  small  increase  in  the  number  of  schools  choosing  to   have  their  assessments  moderated,  it  does  raise  questions  of  the  reliability  of  the  grades   given  to  students  in  the  majority  of  schools.  As  part  of  the  five-­‐year  programme  evaluation   process,  schools  which  do  not  have  their  grades  formally  moderated  are  required  to  submit   some  samples  of  assessed  final-­‐year  work  for  monitoring,  a  version  of  moderation  which   provides  feedback  on  assessment  without  affecting  grades  awarded  (IB,  2010a,  p.49).       This  low  uptake  of  moderation  and  potential  loophole  in  quality  control  leaves  the  MYP  in   an  interesting  position  in  terms  of  reliability,  recognition  and  competition.  Globally  it  is   growing  and  becoming  the  choice  of  international  schools  and  local  schools  aiming  to   ‘internationalise’  their  learning.    The  IB  Diploma  is  a  well-­‐established  programme  
  • 4. Stephen Taylor Assessment internationally,  with  a  current  tally  of  2,313  schools  offering  the  programme  (IB,  2012).   However,  of  these  schools,  just  212  offer  the  MYP  preceding  the  Diploma  Programme  (IB,   2012).  Of  course,  many  of  the  DP-­‐only  schools  will  be  similar  to  sixth-­‐form  colleges  with  an   exclusively  16-­‐19  student  body,  but  there  is  still  some  shortfall  with  its  leading  competitor,   the  IGCSE.       Boasting  over  9,000  schools  enrolled  internationally  (CIE,  2011),  the  Cambridge   International  GCSE  is  often  found  as  the  ‘pre-­‐IB’  qualification  in  international  schools  that   offer  the  Diploma  but  not  MYP.    The  IGCSE  is  closely  based  on  England’s  GCSE,  developed  in   1988  as  a  broader  style  of  assessment  for  Key  Stage  4  in  the  UK  than  the  incumbent  O-­‐ Levels  system  (Bishop  et  al.,  1999).  Originally  the  GCSE,  like  the  MYP,  was  intended  to  go   beyond  selection  and  summative  assessment  of  content,  to  also  “embrace  the  broader   notion  of  assessment,  which  includes  the  following:   • a  system  which  tests  a  balance  of  knowledge,  understanding  and  skills;  this   system  employs  different  types  of  assessment  within  the  courses  of  study  which   reflects  a  variety  of  styles  of  teaching  and  learning;     • challenging  the  range  of  abilities  of  pupils  at  the  end  of  key  stage  4;     • being  relevant  to  everyday  life.”  (Bishop  et  al.,  1999)     In  their  paper  Users’  perceptions  of  the  GCSE,  Bishop,  Black,  Martin  and  Thompson  (1999)   conclude  that  “it  must  be  recognized  that  the  [GCSE]  examination  cannot  perform   concurrently  all  functions  that  users  are  claiming  for  it.”  These  sentiments  could  well  be   shared  of  the  MYP  in  its  current  form:  philosophically  sound  and  in-­‐tune  with  the  needs  of   international  education,  but  with  a  wide  range  of  goals,  assessment  methods  and  low   moderation  somewhat  vulnerable  in  terms  of  validity  and  reliability.  As  Hayden  and   Thompson  (2011,  p.17),  conclude:  “  [for  some]  …the  absence  of  external  external   examination  leading  to  an  externally-­‐awarded  certificate  at  age  16  is  anathema.”     While  discussions  continue  over  UK  schools  moving  away  from  the  GCSE  and  OFQUAL   questions  over  standards  following  recent  revisions  (Morrison,  2009),  the  IB  are  working  on   their  next  incarnation  of  the  MYP:  The  Next  Chapter.  Fundamentally,  The  Next  Chapter   involves  more  streamlined,  structured  and  potentially  more  valid  and  reliable  assessment  of   student  learning.      
  • 5. Stephen Taylor Assessment One  justification  for  the  move  to  the  Next  Chapter  and  its  associated  modes  of  assessment   is  for  the  MYP  to  gain  accreditation  in  many  of  the  countries  in  which  it  is  being   implemented.  In  a  recent  email  exchange  Malcolm  Nicolson,  the  Head  of  MYP  Programme   Development,  stated,  “We  will  be  looking  at  accreditation  standards  globally  –  so  looking  at   USA,  Australia,  Canada,  Netherlands,  Germany,  Japan  and  many  others.  The  UK  is  one  of  the   countries  will  aim  to  satisfy.”  In  order  to  satisfy  the  UK,  the  MYP  must  adhere  to  the   assessment  principles  laid  out  by  OFQUAL,  the  same  body  which  currently  accredits  the   IGCSE,  GCSE  and  A-­‐Level  qualifications,  along  with  the  IB’s  own  Diploma  Programme.     Condition  E4.2  of  the  OFQUAL  document  General  Conditions  of  Recognition,  states  that:     “…In  designing  such  an  assessment,  an  awarding  organization  must  […]  ensure  that   the  assessment  is:  fit  for  purpose,  […]  allows  each  Learner  to  generate  evidence   which  can  be  Authenticated,  [and  which]  allows  Assessors  to  be  able  to  differentiate   accurately  and  consistently  between  a  range  of  attainments  of  Learners.”    (OFQUAL,  2011,  p.44)     Inherently  the  recognition  sought  by  the  MYP  is  an  issue  of  validity  and  reliability  in   assessment.  Here  we  can  try  to  evaluate  validity  and  reliability  in  the  current  model  of  the   MYP  and  look  at  some  of  the  key  proposals  for  change  under  the  Next  Chapter.         What  makes  for  valid  and  reliable  assessment?   When  teaching  my  own  science  classes  I  often  ask  my  students  two  questions  when  they   are  designing,  carrying  out  and  evaluating  lab  work  and  processing  their  results.  The  first  is   “how  do  you  know  your  method  is  allowing  you  to  address  your  research  question?”  The   second  is  “how  do  you  know  you  can  rely  on  your  results?”     Moss  et.  al  (2006)  state  that  educational  assessment  “should  be  able  to  support  [educators]   in  developing  interpretations,  decisions  and  actions  that  enhance  students’  learning.”   Validity  “refers  to  the  soundness  of    [those]  decisions,  interpretations  or  actions.”  (Moss  et   al.,  2006).  Wynne  Harlen  (2007)  defines  validity  as  “how  well  what  is  assessed  corresponds   with  the  behaviour  or  learning  outcome  that  it  is  intended  should  be  assessed;  this  is  often   referred  to  as  construct  validity.”    He  clarifies  that  the  “important  requirement  is  that  the  
  • 6. Stephen Taylor Assessment assessment  concerns  all  aspects  –  and  only  those  aspects  -­‐  of  students'  achievement   relevant  to  a  particular  purpose.”  (Harlen,  2007).       Validity  has  been  traditionally  broken  into  three  domains.  Content  validity  “demonstrates   how  well  the  test  samples  the  class  situations  or  subject  matter  about  which  conclusions  are   to  be  drawn.”  (Moss  et  al.,  2006).  Criterion-­‐related  validity  compares  those  scores  with  “one   or  more  external  variables  considered  to  provide  a  direct  measure  of  the  characteristic  or   behavior  in  question.”  (Moss  et  al.,  2006).  Construct  validity  can  be  described  as  “a  more   indirect  method  of  validation,  “  (Moss  et  al.,  2006).  Harlen  elucidates  construct  validity  as   being  “based  on  an  integration  of  any  evidence  that  bears  on  the  interpretation  or  meaning   of  the  test  scores—including  content-­‐  and  criterion-­‐related  evidence—which  are  thus   subsumed  as  part  of  construct  validity.” On  the  other  hand, Messick  (1995)  describes   construct  validity  as  being  “not  a  property  of  the  test  or  assessment  as  such,  but  rather  of   the  meaning  of  the  test  scores.”    (Messick,  1995).  He  goes  further,  arguing  that  construct   validity  can  be  broken  into  six  sub-­‐domains:  “content,  substantive,  structural,   generalizability,  external,  and  consequential  aspects  of  construct  validity.”       In  classroom  practice  and  assessment  in  the  MYP,  we  are  most  concerned  about  ‘what  to   assess’  and  ‘how  to  assess’.  A  third  fundamental  aspect  of  evaluating  the  usefulness  of  an   assessment  model  or  tools  is  reliability.  This  is  described  by  Harlen  (2007)  in  his  Criteria  for   evaluating  systems  for  student  assessment  as  being  “the  extent  to  which  results  are  of   acceptable  consistency  for  a  particular  use,”  or,  more  commonly  “the  extent  to  which  the   assessment,  if  repeated,  would  give  the  same  result.”     Harlen  also  makes  the  distinction  between  tools  used  for  formative  assessment  and   summative  assessment.  Formative  assessment,  (assessment  for  learning),  has  the  intended   purpose  “of  helping  learning  and  teaching.”  Summative  assessment  information,   (assessment  of  learning),  “is  required  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  records  of  the  progress  of   individual  students,  reporting  to  parents  and  students  at  regular  intervals,  passing   information  to  other  teachers  on  transfer  from  class  to  class  or  in  guiding  decisions  about   subjects  for  further  study”.  (Harlen,  2007).    Formative  assessment  plays  a  vital  role  in  the   classroom,  though  in  this  case  I  will  be  looking  at  the  assessment  of  the  MYP  models   through  the  lens  of  final-­‐year,  summative  assessment.    
  • 7. Stephen Taylor Assessment When  evaluating  assessment  in  the  MYP,  we  should  ask  three  key  questions:     • Does  this  mode  of  assessment  allow  us  to  assess  the  content  we  intend  to   assess  -­‐  does  it  have  content  validity?   • Does  this  mode  of  assessment  allow  us  to  assess  the  skills  or  attributes  we   intend  to  assess  –  does  it  have  criterion-­‐related  validity?   • Does  this  mode  of  assessment  provide  us  with  reliable  and  verifiable   assessment  data  –  is  it  reliable?     If  we  can  answer  these  three  questions  in  the  affirmative,  we  could  conclude  that  the   assessment  is  indeed  ‘fit  for  purpose’.         Assessment  in  the  Middle  Years  Programme:  methods  and  challenges   Assessment  of  student  achievement  in  both  the  current  MYP  and  the  Next  Chapter  derive   from  shared  foundations  in  educational  assessment  theory.  These  are  well  documented  in   the  IB’s  publication  MYP:  principles  into  practice  (2008),  and  include  criterion-­‐related   assessment,  the  best-­‐fit  approach,  the  value  of  formative  assessment,  fitness  for  purpose  of   assessment  tools,  feedback  and  grade  determination.       Assessment  in  the  MYP  has  a  set  of  aims,  below  quoted  from  MYP:  from  principles  to   practice  (IB,  2008):     “Assessment  in  the  MYP  aims  to:   • support  and  encourage  student  learning  by  providing  feedback  on  the  learning  process   • inform,  enhance  and  improve  the  teaching  process   • promote  positive  student  attitudes  towards  learning   • promote  a  deep  understanding  of  subject  content  by  supporting  students  in  their  inquiries   set  in  real  world  contexts  using  the  areas  of  interaction   • promote  the  development  of  higher-­‐order  cognitive  skills  by  providing  rigorous  final   objectives  that  value  these  skills   • reflect  the  international-­‐mindedness  of  the  programme  by  allowing  for  assessments  to  be   set  in  a  variety  of  cultural  and  linguistic  contexts   •  support  the  holistic  nature  of  the  programme  by  including  in  its  model  principles  that  take   account  of  the  development  of  the  whole  student”   (IB,  2008,  p.41)  
  • 8. Stephen Taylor Assessment   These  aims  are  supplemented  with  further  subject-­‐specific  aims  and  objectives.  Within  each   of  the  subjects  there  are  multiple  criteria,  each  with  its  own  aims  and  objectives.  Appendix   2  lists  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  sciences.  With  eight  subject  groups  in  total  we  can  see   that  one  obstacle  to  validity  in  MYP  assessment  lies  in  the  sheer  volume  of  content  and   objectives  that  are  to  be  assessed.  It  is  good  practice  to  assess  through  ‘multiple  measures’,   with  an  IB  stipulation  of  at  least  two  data  points  per  criterion  per  year  (IB,  2010a,  p.54).  In   reality,  that  plays  out  in  schools  as  being  two  data  points  per  reporting  period  (commonly  a   semester).  There  are  six  assessed  criteria  in  the  sciences,  four  in  other  subjects.  As  a   consequence,  students  face  a  minimum  of  eight  summative  assessments  per  semester  in   some  subjects  and  twelve  in  others.  This  is  an  incredible  load  on  teachers  and  students  and   at  the  high-­‐school  level  can  leave  teachers  in  a  position  of  poor  assessment  practices  –   cramming  content  ‘in  preparation  for  the  Diploma’,  assigning  assessed  tasks  as  homework   or  simply  missing  out  valuable  steps  such  as  exploration,  drafting  and  peer  or  self-­‐ assessment.  As  a  result,  the  size  of  the  MYP,  paired  with  the  significant  backwash  effect  of   Diploma  Programme  preparation,  could  be  having  a  negative  impact  not  just  on  content   validity  but  likely  also  reliability.           Grading  and  reporting   Overall  grades  on  students’  progress  in  the  eight  academic  subject  groups  are  reported  on  a   1-­‐7  scale.  A  full  set  of  descriptors  of  these  grades  is  included  in  Appendix  2.  These  1-­‐7  scores   are  determined  against  a  set  of  published  grade  boundaries  for  each  of  the  eight  subject   groups.  A  best-­‐fit  approach  is  used  to  determine  the  score  for  each  of  the  subject’s   assessment  criteria.  These  scores  are  then  added  up  and  grade  boundaries  are  applied.  The   positioning  of  these  boundaries  is  an  example  of  norm-­‐referencing  to  some  extent  in  the   MYP.  It  is  a  point  at  which  and  essentially  descriptive,  criterion-­‐referenced  system  is  used  to   produce  a  single  numerical  score  –  and  in  the  sciences  it  does  not  quite  add  up.  A  student   who  scores  4  in  all  criteria  falls  one  point  the  wrong  side  of  a  5  grade  overall  –  the  grade   which  best  represents  his  achievement  when  the  descriptors  are  compared  to  one  another.   This  suggests  an  issue  with  criterion  validity,  but  could  be  remedied  with  a  normative   decision  to  move  the  boundary.        
  • 9. Stephen Taylor Assessment In  the  current  model  of  the  MYP,  “all  the  work  of  students  is  internally  assessed  by  teachers.   There  is  no  formal  examination  structure,  no  system  of  external  assessment  and  the  IB  does   not  provide  MYP  exams.”  (IB,  2010a,  p.52).  The  MYP  in  its  current  guise  is  commonly   described  as  a  framework  for  teaching  and  assessment,  and  is  not  intended  to  be  a   curriculum  or  replacement  for  standardized  testing.  The  MYP  Coordinator’s  Handbook  (IB,   2010a)  goes  on  to  say  that  “external  examinations  provided  by  other  organisations  are   unlikely  to  address  the  MYP  subject-­‐specific  objectives.”  (IB,  2010a,  p.52).       As  mentioned  before,  the  low  uptake  of  schools  in  the  formal  moderation  process  raises   concerns  about  the  reliability  of  grades  awarded  in  MYP  assessment.  It  is  a  requirement   that  schools  with  multiple  teachers  per  section  moderate  internally,  though  there  is  little  in   the  way  of  quality  control  to  ensure  that  this  takes  place  until  the  school’s  five-­‐year   evaluation  visit.         Criterion-­‐related  assessment  in  the  MYP   Assessment  of  student  achievement  in  eight  subject  areas  and  the  personal  project  of  the   MYP  are  entirely  criterion-­‐related,  using  a  best-­‐fit  approach  (IB,  2008,  p.40).  This  is  derived   from  previous  practice  in  criterion-­‐referenced  assessment.    Although  similar,  and  often   confused  by  teachers  and  administrators,  there  are  subtle  differences  between  the  two   approaches.  To  fully  understand  the  impacts  of  the  Next  Chapter  and  the  continuing  role  of   criterion-­‐related  assessment,  we  must  first  understand  these  key  modes  of  assessment.       Norm-­‐referenced  assessment  of  student  achievement  does  not  overtly  exist  in  the  MYP  and   is  not  generally  accepted  practice  in  the  MYP  classroom.  Norms  are  traditionally  used  to   rank  learners  in  terms  of  their  perceived  achievement  in  a  test  or  assessment  battery.   Norm-­‐referencing  “places  groups  of  students  into  predetermined  bands  of  achievements.   Students  compete  for  limited  numbers  of  grades  within  these  bands  which  range  between   fail  and  excellence.”  (Dunn  et  al.,  2002)  In  its  most  traditional  sense,  norm-­‐referencing   measures  students  only  against  others  and  is  not  necessarily  a  good  measure  of  content   mastery  (O'Connor,  2011,  pp.79-­‐80).  Norm-­‐referenced  grading  is,  in  essence,  a  competitive   pursuit  and  not  in  the  interests  of  all  students  –  especially  those  who  struggle  to  succeed.  
  • 10. Stephen Taylor Assessment This  may  be  appropriate  in  a  competitive  environment,  but  it  does  not  suit  the  inclusive   nature  of  the  IB  programmes.       Criterion-­‐referenced  achievement  “is  not  dependent  on  how  well  others  in  the  cohort  have   performed,  but  on  how  well  the  individual  student  has  performed  as  measured  against   specific  criteria  and  standards.”  (Dunn  et  al.,  2002).  It  is  an  assessment  idea  which  has  been   in  use  since  the  1960s  although  it  wasn’t  until  the  early  1970’s  that  academics  such  as   Hambleton  &  Novick  (1973)  joined  up  key  ideas  in  theory  and  practice.  They  state  that  in   common  with  all  previous  definitions  of  criterion-­‐referenced  assessment  is  that    “the   definition  of  a  well-­‐specified  content  domain  and  the  development  of  procedures  for   generating  appropriate  samples  of  test  items  are  important.”  (Hambleton  &  Novick,  1973)       Having  said  this,  it  could  be  argued,  as  David  F.  Lohman  quotes,  that,  “behind  every  criterion   lurks  a  norm”  (Lohman,  2009).  In  assessment  of  learners  in  the  MYP  we  aim  to  measure   them  against  pre-­‐determined  performance  outcomes  –  criterion  descriptors  –  but  how  are   these  outcomes  decided?    This  is  where,  to  a  greater  extent,  we  find  the  norm:  hiding  in   plain  sight  as  the  command  terms  of  an  achievement-­‐level  descriptor!     Assessment  in  a  criterion-­‐referenced  system  raises  more  challenges  in  terms  of  construct   validity  than  traditional  norm-­‐referenced  tests,  as  described  by  Edward  Haertal  in  1985:   “When  tests  are  used  only  to  rank  examinees,  validity  can  be  established  by  simple   correlations  of  test  scores  with  criteria.  Criterion-­‐referenced  interpretations,  using   test  performance  […]  require  new  approaches  to  test  validation.”     Essentially  here  we  see  the  importance  of  command  terms  come  to  the  fore  –  the  language   or  action-­‐verbs  used  in  assessment  tasks  and  descriptors:   “This  methodology  begins  with  the  description  of  the  achievement  construct  in   psychological  and  behavioral  terms.  The  psychological  description  of  the   achievement  construct  is  an  account  of  the  knowledge  and  skills  it  entails.”    (Haertal,  1985)          
  • 11. Stephen Taylor Assessment The  command  terms  are  a  defined  set  of  action  verbs  which  have  been  categorized  in   accordance  with  the  ideas  of  Bloom’s  taxonomy  to  represent  a  hierarchy  of  desired   achievement  constucts.  The  example  rubric  below,  for  the  sciences  criterion  C:  Knowledge   and  understanding,  demonstrates  this:     Table  1:  Criterion  C:  Knowledge  &  understanding  (current)  taken  from  the  MYP  Science  Guide  (IB,  2010b)   Level   Descriptor   0   The  student  does  not  meet  any  of  the  descriptors  below.   1-­‐2   The student recalls some scientific ideas, concepts and/or processes. The student applies scientific understanding to solve simple problems.   3-­‐4   The student describes scientific ideas, concepts and/or processes. The student applies scientific understanding to solve complex problems in familiar situations. The student analyses scientific information by identifying parts, relationships or causes.   5-­‐6   The student uses scientific ideas, concepts and/or processes correctly to construct scientific explanations. The student applies scientific understanding to solve complex problems including those in unfamiliar situations. The student analyses and evaluates scientific information and makes judgments supported by scientific understanding.     The  descriptors  ‘recall’  and  ‘describe’  are  in  line  with  the  lower  end  on  Bloom’s  taxonomy  –   the  knowledge  domain.  However,  ‘construct’  and  ‘analyse’  appear  at  the  higher  end.  By   focusing  assessment  on  these  skills  and  knowledge  outcomes,  the  normative  aspect  of   assessment  is  present  in  the  grade-­‐level  descriptors.       This  generates  another  issue  with  content  and  criterion  validity  in  the  current  MYP  model.   At  the  moment,  these  command  terms  are  fully  defined  and  published  in  a  document   entitled  ‘Command  terms  in  the  MYP’  (IB,  2010c).  However,  they  are  not  present  in  all   subject  guides  and  the  usage  of  those  that  are  present  may  not  be  consistent  between   subjects.  A  lack  of  coherence  between  classrooms  may  lead  into  issues  of  criterion-­‐related   validity,  especially  for  students  and  teachers  who  teach  across  disciplines  and  see  command   terms  used  in  different  ways.       Criterion-­‐related  assessment  in  the  MYP  differs  from  criterion-­‐referenced  assessment  in  a   subtle  but  important  way.  Criterion-­‐referenced  assessment  is  often  used  to  assess  mastery   of  skills  and  content.  Criterion-­‐related  assessment  uses  a  best-­‐fit  approach  to  assign  grades   to  students:  “When  assessing  a  student’s  work,  teachers  should  read  the  descriptors   (starting  with  level  0)  until  they  reach  a  descriptor  that  describes  an  achievement  level  that   the  work  being  assessed  has  not  attained.”  (IB,  2010a,  p.25)  In  practice,  this  allows  for  a  
  • 12. Stephen Taylor Assessment teacher  to  judge  a  student’s  work  based  on  the  most  appropriate  combination  of   descriptors  as  outlines  in  the  rubric.  The  best-­‐fit  approach  also  covers  assigning  final  grades.   Averages  and  percentages  are  not  acceptable  practice  –  instead  one  must  look  at  the  recent   trend  in  a  student’s  work  towards  a  given  criterion.  For  this  reason  it  is  important  that  there   are  multiple  measures  for  each  criterion  per  reporting  period.  A  clarification  of  the  IB’s   position  on  best-­‐fit  grading  is  included  in  Appendix  3.       This  best-­‐fit  approach  to  assessment  is  a  strength  of  the  MYP  in  terms  of  criterion-­‐related   validity  as  it  focuses  on  the  student’s  ability  to  achieve  in  relation  to  a  set  of  pre-­‐determined,   published  performance  descriptors.  With  the  best-­‐fit  approach,  teachers  are  best  placed  to   assess  a  student’s  work  for  what  they  have  achieved,  rather  than  what  they  have  not  (which   is  a  feature  of  pure  criterion-­‐referenced  assessment).    It  is  reliable  as  it  is  based  on  multiple   measures  and  evidence  of  trends  in  student  achievement.  However,  for  the  system  to  work   effectively,  there  needs  to  be  multiple  measures  of  each  criterion  –  which  regularly  proves  a   challenge  in  a  subject  with  six  criteria.  In  some  classes,  a  ‘race  to  assess’  can  impact  both   reliability  and  validity.       In  a  recent  study  in  Sweden,  grade  inflation  was  observed  in  criterion-­‐referenced   assessment  system.  (Wikström,  2005).    Wikström  found  in  her  study  over  six  years  that   grades  had  been  increasing  in  the  criterion-­‐referenced  system  and  was  able  to  exclude   factors  relating  to  authentic  improved  achievements,  strategic  course  selection  and   selective  exclusion  of  low-­‐achievers.  What  remained  was  a  lowering  of  standards,  with  a   more  notable  change  in  the  Arts  and  the  lowest  in  English  and  Mathematics,  subjects   calibrated  against  national  tests.  In  a  typical  MYP  classroom,  assessment  is  in  the  hands  of   the  teacher  and  therefore  prone  to  positive  grading  or  an  indivdual’s  interpretation  of  the   criteria.  Under  the  current  system  which  includes  attitudinal  grades,  the  effect  of  grade   inflation  may  be  more  pronounced,  having  a  negative  impact  on  reliability  of  grades   awarded.       In  the  sciences  it  could  be  argued  tha  half  of  a  student’s  current  grade  comes  not  from  the   ‘hard  science’  of  knowledge  and  lab  investigative  skills  but  from  a  more  social-­‐sciences  and   language  leaning  towards  One  World,  Communication  in  science  and  Attitudes  in  science.   This  raises  a  concern  over  content  validity  –  is  a  student  scoring  well  because  she  is  good  at  
  • 13. Stephen Taylor Assessment science  or  is  it  because  what  is  being  assessed  is  not  science?  It  also  raises  a  more  serious   question  of  reliability  and  appropriateness  when  part  of  a  grade  is  devoted  to  attitudinal  or   behavioural  evidence  –  which  can  be  subjective,  is  hard  to  track  and  does  not  give  a   measure  of  a  student’s  genuine  achivements  in  science.  (O'Connor,  2011,  pp.16-­‐20).         Validity  and  reliability  in  science  assessment  in  MYP:  The  Next  Chapter     So  does  the  Next  Chapter  address  the  issues  in  validity  and  reliability  that  are  present  in  the   current  model  and  how  does  this  impact  the  sciences?  To  get  a  better  picture  of  some  of   these  proposed  changes  (which  are  currently  being  implemented  in  selected  pilot  schools),   please  refer  to  Appendices  4-­‐7  which  include:  summary  changes  to  the  aims  of  the  sciences;   summary  changes  to  assessment  in  the  sciences;  comparison  of  old  vs  new  assessment   criteria;  and,  comparison  of  grade  level  descriptors  for  the  knowledge-­‐related  criterion.       Criterion-­‐related  validity  in  the  MYP  sciences   Paring  back  the  aims,  assessed  criteria  and  descriptors  of  the  sciences  is  likely  to  have  a   positive  effect  on  criterion-­‐related  validity.  Through  a  clearer,  shorter  and  better-­‐defined   set  of  aims  and  objectives,  the  task  of  assessing  whether  a  student  has  met  these  goals  will   be  more  manageable  and  potentially  more  reliable.       Cutting  the  sciences  criteria  from  six  to  four  will  also  likely  have  a  number  of  positive   impacts  on  validity  and  reliability.  The  removal  of  the  behavioural  Attitudes  in  science   criterion  will  allow  for  more  reliable  assessment  of  a  student’s  actual  achievements  against   the  science  aims  and  objectives,  with  a  reduced  risk  of  subjective  contamination.  With  the   best  practice  of  multiple  measures,  four  criteria  are  easier  to  handle  than  six.  This  should   give  more  opportunities  for  meaningful  assessment  of  each  criterion.  It  will  be  an   interesting  study,  that  which  addresses  the  impact  of  removing  these  attitudinal  criteria  on   overall  student  achievement.  One  might  hypothesise  that  overall  1-­‐7  scores  will  decrease  as   the  ‘safety  nets’  of  Communication  in  science  and  Attitudes  in  science  are  removed  from  the   conceptually  weaker  students.       Finally,  an  increased  programme-­‐wide  focus  on  the  command  terms,  with  common   definitions,  should  serve  to  make  the  language  of  assessment  easier  for  all  to  understand  
  • 14. Stephen Taylor Assessment and  lead  to  more  criterion-­‐related  reliability.  Wordy  descriptors  with  multiple  command   terms  should  be  replaced  with  more  concise  descriptors,  giving  a  focus  for  assessment  of   the  criterion.  With  a  more  manageable  task  in  hand,  students  should  be  able  to  identify   performance  elements  which  will  allow  them  to  access  higher  grades.         Content  validity  in  the  MYP  sciences   The  MYP  is  described  as  a  framework  for  assessment  and  learning  and  not  an  exhaustive   curriculum.  This  allows  scope  for  schools  to  set  their  own  levels  of  content  validity,  such  as   meeting  the  state  science  content  standards.  However,  this  can  be  a  challenge  for  schools   where  there  is  no  parallel  set  of  standards  and  can  make  the  feed-­‐in  role  of  the  MYP  to  the   DP  difficult.  In  the  Next  Chapter,  clearer  guidelines  for  content  in  the  form  of  significant   concepts  and  perhaps  even  online  support  content  should  allow  teachers  to  plan  units  of   work  which  can  be  assessed  with  greater  content  validity.         Testing  knowledge  in  the  MYP  sciences   Under  the  Next  Chapter,  he  key  proposal  that  the  Using  knowledge  criterion  “must  only  be   assessed  through  tests  or  exams,”  (IB,  2011)  is,  to  me,  one  of  the  most  interesting  changes   to  be  put  forth  in  the  MYP  sciences.  It  represents  a  move  to  an  assessment  of  knowledge   that  at  face  value  may  seem  more  ‘old-­‐fashioned’  and  less  suited  to  differentiation  to   students’  needs  than  the  current  system.  The  working  sciences  guide  allows  for  assessment   of  Knowledge  and  understanding  through  a  diversity  of  modes,  including  case  studies  and   response  to  articles  or  datasets  (IB,  2010a,  p.31).  As  long  as  testing  is  used  well  the  new   system  will  allow  for  greater  reliability  in  the  data  produced  (free  from  potential   contamination  of  other  students’  ideas  such  as  in  the  current  system).  It  may  also  have  a   positive  impact  on  consequential  validity  as  students  move  into  the  DP  and  preparation  for   a  final  exam  marked  on  grade  boundaries,  making  up  76%  of  their  summative  assessment.       Arguably  the  move  to  stipulate  testing  or  exams  as  a  method  of  assessment  of  Using   knowledge  is  one  to  ensure  greater  reliability  of  assessment.  In  practice,  this  will  hold   significant  challenges  for  teachers  that  will  need  to  be  given  professional  development   considerations  from  the  IB.  As  Sylvia  Green  notes,    
  • 15. Stephen Taylor Assessment “…The  links  between  the  level  descriptions  and  [the  national]  test  mark  schemes  are   not  so  transparent.    Different  elements  within  structured  questions  may  address   different  levels  and  content,  even  different  domains  within  the  subject,  therefore  it   may  be  difficult  to  classify  some  questions  as  ‘at  a  particular  level’.    In  such   circumstances  standard  setting  is  done  by  determining  ‘thresholds’  in  total  test   scores,  initially  by  judgmental  means  and  subsequently  using  statistical  equating  to   support  judgments.“                (Green,  2002)     Test  design  is  a  complex  business  and  designing  tests  that  work  in  a  criterion-­‐related   situation  is  a  challenge.  As  a  traditional  mode  of  assessment  that  gives  the  perception  of   rigour  and  ‘academia’,  it  will  take  a  concerted  effort  to  change  the  approach  of  stakeholders   in  assessment  and  to  reinforce  the  criterion-­‐related  approach.          Conclusions  &  Recommendations   A  great  deal  of  thought  and  scholarship  lies  behind  the  Next  Chapter  and  its  implications  for   assessment  in  the  sciences.  Removal  of  attitudinal  criteria,  clearly  defined  command  terms,   more  concise  achievement-­‐level  descriptors  and  a  narrower  set  of  acceptable  assessment   tools  should  serve  to  enhance  reliability  of  assessment.  Emphasis  on  the  aims  of  the   sciences  and  the  proposed  production  of  pre-­‐populated  online  unit  planner  tools  may  make   some  headway  in  validity  of  what  is  being  assessed.  However,  it  will  take  considerable  work   on  the  part  of  the  IB,  school  leaders  and  teachers  to  translate  the  Next  Chapter  into   effective  classroom  action.       Professional  development  of  all  teachers  must  play  a  central  role  in  ensuring  that   assessment  in  the  Next  Chapter  makes  a  successful  translation  from  paper  to  practice.  With   over  900  schools  practicing  the  MYP,  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  the  teachers  in  each   classroom  and  the  administrators  in  each  office  are  clued-­‐in  to  current  educational   philosophy  and  practices.  It  is  already  a  programme  authorization  and  evaluation   requirement  that  teachers  attend  MYP  workshops  for  programme  delivery  and   development.  Online  and  in-­‐school  workshops,  as  well  as  the  Online  Curriculum  Centre   (OCC)  exist  as  tools  for  professional  development  and  are  becoming  stronger.    
  • 16. Stephen Taylor Assessment The  IB  should  take  the  opportunity  to  capitalize  on  its  own  developments  and  opportunities   by  including  making  explicit  discussion  of  validity  and  reliability  in  assessment  practices  a   part  of  these  resources.  Outreach  through  the  OCC,  video  or  article  resources.       Clear  exemplars,  such  as  those  generally  found  in  teachers’  support  material,  must  be  made   widely  available  and  readily  accessible  if  they  are  to  be  put  to  good  use.  This  is  of  particular   importance  to  testing  –  perhaps  the  one  criterion  which  represents  the  biggest  change  for   science  teachers  in  their  methods.       Finally,  there  is  a  need  to  allow  teachers  to  support  the  effective  development  of  their   students’  assessment  practices.  With  the  removal  of  attitudinal  grading,  and  its   consequential  boost  to  validity  and  reliability,  comes  an  increases  likelihood  of  a  failing   student.  It  must  emphasized  through  all  professional  development  modes,  handbooks  and   other  available  media  that  effective,  criterion-­‐related  formative  assessment  plays  a  crucial   role  in  development:     “There  is  a  body  of  firm  evidence  that  formative  assessment  is  an  essential   component  of  classroom  work  and  that  its  development  can  raise  standards  of   achievement.”  (Black  &  Wiliam,  2010)     With  some  excitement,  but  also  trepidation,  I  look  forward  to  the  Next  Chapter.  Early  signs   look  positive  that  it  will  become  more  reliable  and  valid  in  its  assessment:  it  will  evolve  into   a  form  that  shows  greater  fitness  for  purpose.             Acknowledgements     Thank-­‐you  to  Malcolm  Nicolson,  Head  of  the  Middle  Years  Programme,  and  Sean  Rankin,   Head  of  Curriculum  and  Assessment  for  the  Sciences,  for  their  input  and  willingness  to   answer  questions  by  email.  Thanks  also  to  Sue  Martin  for  her  guidance  and  mentoring   during  the  summer  school  and  by  email  since.  
  • 17. Stephen Taylor Assessment   References Bishop, K., Bullock, K., Martin, S. & Thompson, J., 1999. Users' perceptions of the GCSE. Educational Research, 41(1), pp.35-49. Black, P. & Wiliam, D., 2010. Kappan Classic: Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan , 92(1), pp.81-90. CIE, 2011. Cambridge IGCSE Brochure (pdf). [Online] Available at: http://www.cie.org.uk/docs/qualifications/igcse/IGCSE%20Brochure.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2012]. Dunn, L., Parry, S. & Morgan, C., 2002. Seeking quality in criterion referenced assessment. [Online] Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002257.htm [Accessed 20 February 2012]. Green, S., 2002. Criterion referenced assessment as a guide to learning - the importance of progression and reliability. [Presentation, available online at:] Johannesburg Available at: http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/113775_Criterion_Referenced_Assess ment_as_a_Guide_to_Learning._The_.pdf [Accessed 13 February 2012]. Haertal, E., 1985. Construct Validity and Criterion-Referenced Testing. Review of Educational Research, 55(1), pp.23-46. Hambleton, R.K. & Novick, M.R., 1973. Toward an integration of theory and method for criterion-referenced tests.. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10(3), pp.159-70. Harlen, W., 2007. Criteria for evaluating systems for student assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(1), pp.15-28. IB, 2008. MYP: From principles to practice [Note: Password protected]. Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate Organisation. Available at: http://ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 18 October 2011]. IB, 2009. The Middle Years Programme: A basis for practice (pdf). Cardiff, UK: International Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 4 January 2012]. IB, 2010a. MYP Coordinator's Handbook (pdf). Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org/ [password protected] [accessed 4 January 2012]. IB, 2010b. MYP: Sciences guide. For use from January 2011. Cardiff, UK: International Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 30 January 2011]. IB, 2010c. Command terms in the MYP. Cardiff, UK: International Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [accessed 30 January 2011]. IB, 2011a. Development Report: MYP Sciences guide (pdf). [Online] Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [Accessed 5 November 2011].
  • 18. Stephen Taylor Assessment IB, 2011b. MYP Statistical Bulletin, June 2011 moderation session (pdf) [Note: password protected]. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibo.org/facts/statbulletin/mypstats/documents/myp_statistical_bulletin_june_2011.pd f [password protected] [Accessed 12 February 2012]. IB, 2011c. MYP: the next chapter. Project report October 2011. [Online] Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [password protected] [Accessed 25 November 2011]. IB, 2012. IB Fast Facts. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibo.org/facts/fastfacts/ [password protected] [Accessed 20 February 2012]. Lohman, D.F., 2009. The Contextual Assessment of Talent. In Vantassel-Baska, J. Leading Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr. Joyce Vantassel-Baska. Accessed online at http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/The_Contextual_Assessment_of_Talent.pdf ed. Waco, Texas, USA: Prufrock Press. pp.229-41. Messick, S., 1995. Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences From Persons' Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry Into Score Meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), p.741–749. Morrison, N., 2009. GCSE your time is up. [Online] Available at: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6012334 [Accessed 12 February 2012]. Moss, P., Girard, B. & Haniford, L., 2006. Validity in edcuational assesssment. Review of Research in Education (http://rre.sagepub.com/content/30/1/109.full.pdf+html), 30(1), pp.109-62. Nicolson, M. & Hannah, L., 2010. History of the Middle Years Programme (pdf). [Online] Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [Accessed 14 February 2012]. Nicolson, Malcolm. Personal email correspondences. January 16-February 26 2012. O'Connor, K., 2011. A repair kit for grading/ 15 fixes for broken grades - 2nd Ed.. Boston: Pearson Education. OFQUAL, 2011. General Conditions of Recognition. [Online] Available at: http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2011-05-16-general-conditions-of-recognition.pdf?Itemid=111 [Accessed 12 February 2012]. Rankin, Sean. Personal email correspondences regarding sciences assessment. January 16- February 28 2012. Thompson, J. & Hayden, M., 2011. The Middle Years Programme. In Thompson, J. & Hayden, M. Taking the MYP forward. Melton, UK: John Catt Educational. pp.13-18. Wikström, C., 2005. Grade stability in a criterion-referenced grading system: a Swedish example.. Assessment in Education, 12(2), pp.125-44.
  • 19. Stephen Taylor Assessment Appendices Appendix 1: Aims and objectives of the MYP sciences. Taken from the science subject guide (IB, 2010a) Aims   The  aims  of  any  MYP  subject  and  of  the  personal  project  state  in  a  general  way  what  the  teacher  may  expect   to  teach  or  do,  and  what  the  student  may  expect  to  experience  or  learn.  In  addition,  they  suggest  how  the   student  may  be  changed  by  the  learning  experience.   The  aims  of  the  teaching  and  study  of  MYP  sciences  are  to  encourage  and  enable  students  to:   1. develop  curiosity,  interest  and  enjoyment  towards  science  and  its  methods  of  inquiry   2. acquire  scientific  knowledge  and  understanding   3. communicate  scientific  ideas,  arguments  and  practical  experiences  effectively  in  a  variety  of  ways   4. develop  experimental  and  investigative  skills  to  design  and  carry  out  scientific  investigations  and  to   evaluate  evidence  to  draw  a  conclusion   5. develop  critical,  creative  and  inquiring  minds  that  pose  questions,  solve  problems,  construct   explanations,  judge  arguments  and  make  informed  decisions  in  scientific  and  other  contexts   6. develop  awareness  of  the  possibilities  and  limitations  of  science  and  appreciate  that  scientific   knowledge  is  evolving  through  collaborative  activity  locally  and  internationally   7. appreciate  the  relationship  between  science  and  technology  and  their  role  in  society   8. develop  awareness  of  the  moral,  ethical,  social,  economic,  political,  cultural  and  environmental   implications  of  the  practice  and  use  of  science  and  technology   9. observe  safety  rules  and  practices  to  ensure  a  safe  working  environment  during  scientific  activities   10. engender  an  awareness  of  the  need  for  and  the  value  of  effective  collaboration  during  scientific   activities.     Objectives   The  objectives  of  any  MYP  subject  and  of  the  personal  project  state  the  specific  targets  that  are  set  for   learning  in  the  subject.  They  define  what  the  student  will  be  able  to  accomplish  as  a  result  of  studying  the   subject.   These  objectives  relate  directly  to  the  assessment  criteria  found  in  the  “Sciences  assessment  criteria”  section.     A   One  world   This  objective  refers  to  enabling  students  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the  role  of  science  in  society.   Students  should  be  aware  that  science  is  a  global  endeavour  and  that  its  development  and  applications  can   have  consequences  for  our  lives.   One  world  should  provide  students  with  the  opportunity  to  critically  assess  the  implications  of  scientific   developments  and  their  applications  to  local  and/or  global  issues.   At  the  end  of  the  course,  students  should  be  able  to:   • explain  the  ways  in  which  science  is  applied  and  used  to  address  specific  problems  or  issues   • discuss  the  effectiveness  of  science  and  its  application  in  solving  problems  or  issues   • discuss  and  evaluate  the  moral,  ethical,  social,  economic,  political,  cultural  and  environmental   implications  of  the  use  of  science  and  its  application  in  solving  specific  problems  or  issues.     B   Communication  in  science   This  objective  refers  to  enabling  students  to  become  competent  and  confident  when  communicating   information  in  science.  Students  should  be  able  to  use  scientific  language  correctly  and  a  variety  of   communication  modes  and  formats  as  appropriate.  Students  should  be  aware  of  the  importance  of   acknowledging  and  appropriately  referencing  the  work  of  others  when  communicating  in  science.     At  the  end  of  the  course,  students  should  be  able  to:   • use  scientific  language  correctly   • use  appropriate  communication  modes  such  as  verbal  (oral,  written),  visual  (graphic,  symbolic)  and   communication  formats  (laboratory  reports,  essays,  presentations)  to  effectively  communicate  theories,   ideas  and  findings  in  science  
  • 20. Stephen Taylor Assessment • acknowledge  the  work  of  others  and  the  sources  of  information  used  by  appropriately  documenting   them  using  a  recognized  referencing  system.     C   Knowledge  and  understanding  of  science   This  objective  refers  to  enabling  students  to  understand  scientific  knowledge  (facts,  ideas,  concepts,  processes,   laws,  principles,  models  and  theories)  and  to  apply  it  to  construct  scientific  explanations,  solve  problems  and   formulate  scientifically  supported  arguments.     At  the  end  of  the  course,  students  should  be  able  to:   • recall  scientific  knowledge  and  use  scientific  understanding  to  construct  scientific  explanations   • apply  scientific  knowledge  and  understanding  to  solve  problems  set  in  familiar  and  unfamiliar  situations   • critically  analyse  and  evaluate  information  to  make  judgments  supported  by  scientific  understanding.     D   Scientific  inquiry   While  the  scientific  method  may  take  on  a  wide  variety  of  approaches,  it  is  the  emphasis  on  experimental   work  that  characterizes  MYP  scientific  inquiry.   This  objective  refers  to  enabling  students  to  develop  intellectual  and  practical  skills  to  design  and  carry  out   scientific  investigations  independently  and  to  evaluate  the  experimental  design  (method).     At  the  end  of  the  course,  students  should  be  able  to:   • state  a  focused  problem  or  research  question  to  be  tested  by  a  scientific  investigation   • formulate  a  testable  hypothesis  and  explain  it  using  scientific  reasoning   • design  and  carry  out  scientific  investigations  that  include  variables  and  controls,  material  and/or   equipment  needed,  a  method  to  be  followed  and  the  way  in  which  the  data  is  to  be  collected  and   processed   • evaluate  the  validity  and  reliability  of  the  method   • judge  the  validity  of  a  hypothesis  based  on  the  outcome  of  the  investigation  suggest  improvements  to   the  method  or  further  inquiry,  when  relevant.     E    Processing  data   This  objective  refers  to  enabling  students  to  collect,  process  and  interpret  sufficient  qualitative  and/or   quantitative  data  to  draw  appropriate  conclusions.  Students  are  expected  to  develop  analytical  thinking  skills   to  interpret  data  and  judge  the  reliability  of  the  data.     At  the  end  of  the  course,  students  should  be  able  to:   • collect  and  record  data  using  units  of  measurement  as  and  when  appropriate       • organize,  transform  and  present  data  using  numerical  and  visual  forms     • analyse  and  interpret  data     • draw  conclusions  consistent  with  the  data  and  supported  by  scientific  reasoning.     F   Attitudes  in  science   This  objective  refers  to  encouraging  students  to  develop  safe,  responsible  and  collaborative  working  practices   in  practical  science.     During  the  course,  students  should  be  able  to:   • work  safely  and  use  material  and  equipment  competently     • work  responsibly  with  regards  to  the  living  and  non-­‐living  environment     • work  effectively  as  individuals  and  as  part  of  a  group  by  collaborating  with  others. •
  • 21. Stephen Taylor Assessment Appendix 2: Grade-level descriptors in the Middle Years Programme Grade   Descriptor   1   Minimal  achievement  in  terms  of  the  objectives.   Very   limited   achievement   against   all   the   objectives.   The   student   has   difficulty   in   understanding   the   required   2   knowledge  and  skills  and  is  unable  to  apply  them  fully  in  normal  situations,  even  with  support.   Limited   achievement   against   most   of   the   objectives,   or   clear   difficulties   in   some   areas.   The   student   3   demonstrates  a  limited  understanding  of  the  required  knowledge  and  skills  and  is  only  able  to  apply   them  fully   in  normal  situations  with  support.   A  good  general  understanding  of  the  required  knowledge  and  skills,  and  the  ability  to  apply  them  effectively  in   4   normal  situations.  There  is  occasional  evidence  of  the  skills  of  analysis,  synthesis  and  evaluation.   A  consistent   and   thorough   understanding  of  the  required  knowledge  and  skills,  and  the  ability  to  apply  them  in   5   a   variety   of   situations.   The   student   generally   shows   evidence   of   analysis,   synthesis   and   evaluation   where   appropriate  and  occasionally  demonstrates  originality  and  insight.   A   consistent   and   thorough   understanding   of   the   required   knowledge   and   skills,   and   the   ability   to   apply   them   in   6   a   wide   variety   of   situations.   Consistent   evidence   of   analysis,   synthesis   and   evaluation   is   shown   where   appropriate.  The  student  generally  demonstrates  originality  and  insight.   A  consistent  and  thorough  understanding  of  the  required  knowledge  and  skills,  and  the  ability  to  apply  them   almost   faultlessly   in   a   wide   variety   of   situations.   Consistent   evidence   of   analysis,   synthesis   and   evaluation   is   7   shown  where  appropriate.  The  student  consistently  demonstrates  originality  and  insight  and  always  produces   work  of  high  quality.   Taken  from  the  MYP  Coordinator’s  Handbook  (IB,  2010a,  pp.59-­‐60)   Appendix 3: The best-fit approach (clarification from the IB) “The  descriptors  for  each  criterion  are  hierarchical.  When  assessing  a  student’s  work,  teachers   should  read  the  descriptors  (starting  with  level  0)  until  they  reach  a  descriptor  that  describes   an  achievement  level  that  the  work  being  assessed  has  not  attained.  The  work  is  therefore   best  described  by  the  preceding  descriptor.     Where  it  is  not  clearly  evident  which  level  descriptor  should  apply,  teachers  must  use  their   judgment  to  select  the  descriptor  that  best  matches  the  student’s  work  overall.  The  “best-­‐fit”   approach  allows  teachers  to  select  the  achievement  level  that  best  describes  the  piece  of  work   being  assessed.     If  the  work  is  a  strong  example  of  achievement  in  a  band,  the  teacher  should  give  it  the  higher   achievement  level  in  the  band.  If  the  work  is  a  weak  example  of  achievement  in  that  band,  the   teacher  should  give  it  the  lower  achievement  level  in  the  band.”   (IB,  2010a,  p.25)
  • 22. Stephen Taylor Assessment Appendix 4: A comparison of the aims of the sciences under the current MYP model and after the proposed changes of the Next Chapter. Current  MYP  Sciences  Guide  (IB,  2010a,  p.4)   Proposed  changes  (IB,  2011,  p.6)   The  aims  of  the  teaching  and  study  of  MYP  sciences  are  to   The  aims  of  the  teaching  and  study  of  MYP  sciences  are  to   encourage  and  enable  students  to:   encourage  and  enable  students  to:   1.   develop  curiosity,  interest  and  enjoyment  towards   • understand  and  appreciate  science  and  its  implications   science  and  its  methods  of  inquiry   through  the  areas  of  interaction   2.   acquire  scientific  knowledge  and  understanding   • consider  science  as  a  human  endeavour  with  benefits  and   3.   communicate  scientific  ideas,  arguments  and  practical   limitations   experiences  effectively  in  a  variety  of  ways   • cultivate  analytical,  inquiring  and  flexible  minds  that  pose   4.   develop  experimental  and  investigative  skills  to  design   questions,  solve  problems,  construct  explanations  and   and  carry  out  scientific  investigations  and  to  evaluate  evidence   judge  arguments   to  draw  a  conclusion   • develop  skills  to  design  and  perform  investigations,   5.   develop  critical,  creative  and  inquiring  minds  that  pose   evaluate  evidence  and  reach  conclusions     questions,  solve  problems,  construct  explanations,  judge   • engender  an  awareness  of  the  need  to  effectively   arguments  and  make  informed  decisions  in  scientific  and  other   collaborate  and  communicate   contexts   • apply  language  skills  and  knowledge  in  a  variety  of  real-­‐ 6.   develop  awareness  of  the  possibilities  and  limitations  of   life  contexts   science  and  appreciate  that  scientific  knowledge  is  evolving   • demonstrate  sensitivity  towards  the  living  and  non-­‐living   through  collaborative  activity  locally  and  internationally   environments   7.   appreciate  the  relationship  between  science  and   • reflect  on  learning  experiences  and  make  informed   technology  and  their  role  in  society   choices   8.   develop  awareness  of  the  moral,  ethical,  social,   economic,  political,  cultural  and  environmental  implications  of   the  practice  and  use  of  science  and  technology   9.   observe  safety  rules  and  practices  to  ensure  a  safe   working  environment  during  scientific  activities   10.   engender  an  awareness  of  the  need  for  and  the  value   of  effective  collaboration  during  scientific  activities.  
  • 23. Stephen Taylor Assessment Appendix 5: Summary of assessment-related changes to the MYP sciences programme under the Next Chapter. Current  Sciences  Guide.  (IB,  2010a)   Proposed  changes  under  the  Next  Chapter.  (IB,  2011)   Six  assessment  criteria   Four  assessment  criteria   Zero-­‐band  plus  three  dual  bands  of  achievement-­‐ Zero-­‐band  plus  four  bands  of  achievement-­‐level   level  descriptors  (0,  1-­‐2,  3-­‐4,  5-­‐6)   descriptors  (0,  1,  2,  3,  4  in  the  current  working  guide   for  pilot  schools)*.     Command  terms  defined  in  the  subject  guide  and   Command  terms  defined  across  the  whole  MYP  and   used  in  achievement-­‐level  descriptors.     used  in  a  more  focused  manner  in  achievement-­‐level   descriptors.     Attitudes  in  science  criterion  in  use.     Attitudes  in  science  criterion  removed.     One  world  and  Communication  in  science  criteria  in   Science  in  the  world  criterion  merges  the  aims  of  One   use.     world  and  Communication  in  science.     Assessment  of  subject  content  acquisition  primarily   Using  knowledge  criterion  to  assess  subject  content   through  Knowledge  and  understanding  criterion.   acquisition.  Key  proposal  that  this  “must  only  be   Modes  of  assessment  open  to  teachers.     assessed  through  tests  or  exams”  (IB,  2011,  p.13)   Lab  and  investigative  work  assessed  through   Lab  and  investigative  work  assessed  through  Inquiring   Scientific  inquiry  and  Processing  data  criteria.     and  designing  and  processing  and  evaluating  criteria.     *This  change  is  noted  in  a  copy  of  an  assessment  rubric  from  the  guide  for  pilot  schools,  shared  by   Sean  Rankin,  Curriculum  and  Assessment  Manager  for  the  MYP  sciences.