This was the task that was set...
You'll need to click on the picture and rotate it clockwise...
http://www.edexcel.com/international/Pages/home.aspx
As a result of training, here are my answers:
Task 1:
If I was faced with this scenario, I'd talk to all the staff in a positive and friendly manner about my role as an IEV and the plans that I had for the day. This way, I could reinforce my visit plan, fulfill their desire for a 'speech' and get the relationship off to a good start. At the end of the feedback session, I'd outline some key points about my role and what to expect the next time I visited. I’d state that whilst I was delighted to talk to them all about the role, I would benefit from a discussion about whether anything other than what was on the visit plan was possible or not next time, to ensure that my time is spent focussing on doing the IEV work, supporting the centre and giving them the best possible service.
Task 2:
To plan more effectively for this visit, it would be critical to improve communication prior to the visit. Being explicit about expectations for assessment practice and I.V. may have helped the centre to prevent their misunderstood process for work production, assessment and IV. This is a developing centre who will need a lot of clarification and support and clear communication is key. I'd have emailed (if possible) the Assessment Toolkit in advance. I'd have asked, during the initial communication (if possible) if the staff had had implementation training, or if they sent any assignments to Edexcel. That way, I'd know if they'd have had the basic information, or whether this centre was likely to be a challenging one. Getting information about past visits and any training already given would enable me to triangulate and form a judgement about whether the situation I would subsequently find myself in was 'can't do' or 'won't do'. Won't do is more easily addressed by explaining consequences of not following the protocol; won't do is much more challenging and the centre would be in need of a package of training and support in order to develop their practice.
Task 3:
My list of points to be discussed at the feedback session are as follows:
Clarification of registrations (this work will already have been done in the day, but during the feedback I'd clarify the situation).
The whole assessment planning process: I'd present the usual best practice cycle of assessment, from task setting to IV. Setting tasks which cover the units (assignment design), the generation of acceptable theory and evidence, how to assess the work (using the Assessment Toolkit), what IV is for, and how to ensure best practice would be explained. If the centre is easy to communicate with, they will already be identifying areas for their own development by comparing their practice with the exemplar version; thus making the 'bad news' more palatable. If however, they are challenging in terms of communication, I would need to set out what is expected throughout the whole cycle. In both cases, I'd set out what is required going forward. If possible, I'd use OSCA to show examples of assessed work, and point out why it is different to what they had been doing. I'd ensure that this was done in a positive manner, and try to ensure that I took the team here with me.
The students' evidence: I'd talk about types of evidence expected by Edexcel for assessment purposes; that it needs to show knowledge and understanding as well as competence - I'd make it clear that covering theory (e.g. just handouts) and internet printouts are not showing how the student is competent at applying that theory in practice. I'd refer the team to OSCA to ensure that they were clear about how 'competence' evidence can be captured in many different ways.
Task 4:
Areas of Good Practice:
Staff at Mid Asia College are extremely positive and supportive. Students feel well supported and staff are clearly committed to developing existing approaches to Edexcel work in order to achieve best practice in future.
Actions for the Centre:
(Not on QRF): What: Confirmation of visit plan to be received by IEV, to ensure that the centre is clear about the running order and activities for the day. When: 2 weeks in advance of visit. Who: Programme Manager
WHO: Centre Staff. WHAT: receive training on the assessment cycle, setting assignments, generating appropriate evidence, assessing and feeding back and IV in practice. WHEN: before next IEV visit
WHO: Centre Staff. WHAT: read Assessment Toolkit. Where there are areas needing further clarification, inform IEV for advice. WHEN: Within one month from visit.
WHO: Centre Staff. WHAT: write assignments which cover the criteria adequately, and which allow students to generate appropriate evidence of knowledge, understanding and competence for each unit covered. WHEN: 6 weeks before delivery.
WHO: Programme Manager. WHAT: Ensure that English on assignments is significantly improved. WHEN: 6 weeks before delivery.
WHO: IV. WHAT: verify assignments before students receive them checking that points 4 & 5 above are fulfilled. WHEN: 5 weeks before delivery.
WHO: Centre Staff. WHAT: review examples of assessed work for [this subject] on OSCA and note methods used. WHEN: Within one month of this visit.
WHO: IVs. WHAT: read guidance on IV process in order to understand how to check the competence of each assessor. WHEN: Within one month of this visit.
WHO: IVs. WHAT: During IV, produce a sample plan, which selects a sample of assessed student work from an assessor and the range of units that they have assessed. (This doesn't need to be all assessed work). WHEN: One week before the IV activity is to take place.
Reflection:
As a result of training, it is clear that this is a challenging role; working in an international centre will not be like working in the UK, where there are assumptions about understanding. For example, I was surprised to find out about the fact that lots of Chinese centres wish to convert grades to percentages, since grades mean nothing to them! Working diplomatically is key.
No comments:
Post a Comment