PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS QUALIFICATION 1997-99 of new key skills qualification 1997-99.pdf · 1....

O F F I C E

F O R S T A N D A R D S

I N E D U C A T I O N

A joint report from:

PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS

QUALIFICATION1997-99

T R A I N I N G S TA N D A R D S

C O U N C I L

T CS

PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS

QUALIFICATION1997-99

O F F I C E

F O R S T A N D A R D S

I N E D U C A T I O N

A joint report from:

T R A I N I N G S TA N D A R D S

C O U N C I L

T CS

2 PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS QUALIFICATION 1997-99

© Crown copyright 2000

Office for Standards in EducationAlexandra House33 KingswayLondonWC2B 6SE

Telephone: 020 7421 6800

Web address http://www.ofsted.gov.uk

This report may be reproduced in whole or in part fornon-commercial educational purposes, provided that allextracts quoted are reproduced verbatim withoutadaptation and on condition that the source and datethereof are stated.

A further copy can be obtained from:OFSTED Publications Centre PO Box 6927 London E3 3NZ.Telephone 020 7510 0180.

Reference no. HMI 218.

INTRODUCTION 5

MAIN FINDINGSGeneral implementation 6Students’ and trainees’ work 6Students’ and trainees’ response 6Management, teaching and planning 6Assessment 7

ISSUES FOR ATTENTIONFor Government 8For the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 8For the awarding bodies 8For colleges, schools and training providers 8

ATTAINMENT AND PROGRESSGCE A-level programmes 10GNVQ programmes 12NVQ programmes 14Performance on set assignments and Application of Number tests 14

STUDENTS’ AND TRAINEES’ RESPONSE 16

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENTGNVQ programmes 18GCE A-level programmes 18NVQ programmes 19

TEACHING,TRAINING AND LEARNING SUPPORTGCE A-level and GNVQ programmes 20NVQ programmes 20

ASSESSMENT AND RECORDINGCentre-based assessment 22Moderation 22External assessment 23

SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FOR CENTRES 24

CONTENTS

PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS QUALIFICATION 1997-99 3

1. This new key skills qualification arose fromrecommendations in Sir Ron Dearing’s review ofqualifications for 16–19-year-olds, which wasproduced in March 1996. It assesses performance inthe three key skills of Communication, InformationTechnology (IT) and Application of Number, and wasdeveloped from existing units used in the GeneralNational Vocational Qualification (GNVQ) and otherprogrammes. For the full qualification, achievementhas to be demonstrated in all three skills, althoughseparate certification is also available in the individualkey skills units. The qualification was piloted in a rangeof schools, colleges and training providers, and inGeneral Certificate of Education Advanced level(GCE A-level), GNVQ and National VocationalQualification (NVQ) programmes from autumn 1997to summer 1999.

2. An evaluation of the pilot of the new key skillsqualification was commissioned by the Secretary of Statefor Education and Employment in October 1997. TheFurther Education Funding Council (FEFC) Inspectorate,the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) and theTraining Standards Council (TSC) were requested toinspect and jointly report on the impact of the newqualification in colleges, schools and training providers.Inspectors from FEFC and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate(HMI) from OFSTED began visits to centres in autumn1997; inspectors from TSC began their evaluation inApril 1998,when the Council was formally set up. Visitscontinued until July 1999 and the inspection did notcover any developments after this date.

3. In their visits to centres, inspectors evaluated:

• the effectiveness of the qualification in developingstudents’ and trainees’ key skills capability;

• its impact on the quality of students’ and trainees’work in GCE A-levels, GNVQ and NVQprogrammes;

• its impact on teaching, training, learning and themotivation of students and trainees;

• the effectiveness of planning and implementation ofthe key skills in different pathways;

• the rigour and consistency of internal assessment,and the effectiveness of standards moderationprocedures;

• the suitability of revised forms of external

assessment, and their manageability in centres;

• the overall manageability of the qualification, andthe demand it made on staffing and resources;

• the level and effectiveness of staff development,support, guidance and resources provided byawarding bodies and other agencies.

4. Inspectors visited key skills sessions in centres,scrutinised portfolios and discussed the work withstudents and trainees. They interviewed teachers,trainers, assessors, co-ordinators, senior managersand employers. Inspectors also attended awarding-body moderation meetings dealing with both externalset assignments and portfolio work, and assessmenttraining sessions for teachers.

5. A total of 47 schools, 23 Further Education (FE)sector colleges and 13 training providers werevisited in the course of the pilot. Repeat visitswere made to most of these, and some werevisited on up to six occasions to gain anunderstanding of the development of work over aperiod of time. Included in this sample wereindependent, selective and comprehensive schools,general FE and sixth-form colleges, trainingorganisations and employers in receipt ofgovernment funding for training young people andadults. The visits covered the full range of coursesand programmes undertaken by post-16 students,and a representative sample of vocational sectors.They included some schools undertaking the keyskills qualification as a component of the Part OneGNVQ course with students in Key Stage 4.

6. Most centres were piloting the full key skillsqualification, but some were using only one or twounits. A few centres piloted the qualification with alltheir students on particular programmes; mostselected smaller groups, often those most likely to beable to generate the necessary key skills evidencebecause of the particular courses they were taking.Most centres that started in the first year of the pilotcontinued into the second year, but a sizeableminority decided not to do so, largely because of thedifficulties they had encountered, and theshortcomings they perceived in the implementationand administration of the pilot. Others had notformally withdrawn from the pilot, but were notsufficiently active to supply useful feedback.


INTRODUCTION

General implementation • The pilot has demonstrated the substantial difficulties

of introducing a new key skills qualification across thefull range of post-16 courses and programmes, and indiffering types of institutions and training providers.Many of the difficulties have stemmed from the lack ofa widely shared view across the 16–19 sector, in highereducation and amongst employers about the need forthe qualification, its purpose, and the benefits to begained by the young people who undertake it.

• There were serious problems in implementing the keyskills qualification in the majority of GCE A-level andNVQ centres. Only a small proportion of students andtrainees starting the pilot completed the units in any ofthe key skills, and very few achieved the full qualificationby completing all three units.

• Introduction of the pilot key skills qualification wasgenerally satisfactory in GNVQ programmes.Teachers were already familiar with key skills, andmost students achieved the full qualification, orindividual units within it, as an integral part of theirGNVQ.

• The pilot has achieved a significant improvement in therigour with which key skills are assessed.

• On all types of programme the emphasis was verylargely on the collection and assessment of evidence ofwhat students and trainees could already do, andinsufficient attention was given to developing their keyskills capability.

Students’ and trainees’ work• GCE A-level students who successfully completed key

skills units in Communication and Application ofNumber did so largely on the basis of existing workfrom their GCE A-level courses. Whether they coulddo this in Application of Number depended on theirparticular combination of GCE A-level subjects.

• Other than in the development of oral presentations insome centres, and more comprehensive IT capability inothers, there was little evidence that the key skillsqualification had had an impact on the performance ofstudents in their GCE A-level studies or of trainees onNVQ programmes. It was largely seen as a means ofaccrediting existing skills.

• The new specifications and assessment procedures

led to some improvements in students’ achievementsin Application of Number and IT in GNVQprogrammes in colleges and, to a lesser extent, inschools.

• The new arrangements for key skills had the effect thatmuch of the key skills evidence for GNVQ courses inschools, and for NVQ programmes in some trainingproviders, was produced separately from vocationalwork. In colleges, key skills were, generally, activelydeveloped in GNVQ courses, they were integratedinto vocational assignments, and had a positive effect onstudents’ work.

• The quality of much of the completed level 3 key skillsevidence in portfolios of GCE A-level and AdvancedGNVQ students and modern apprentices was good,reflecting the general standard of work in theseprogrammes.

Students’ and trainees’ response• The majority of students and trainees were initially

fairly positive about their involvement in the pilot,though they were often unclear about the purpose ofthe key skills. However, many were demotivated bypoor results on the external assessment, and by thedifficulty of finding all the necessary portfolio evidence.This resulted in high drop out rates from GCE A-leveland NVQ programmes.

• Lack of knowledge about, and interest in, key skills byuniversity admissions tutors and local employers had anegative effect on students’ perceptions of thequalification. Some employers’ lack of co-operationwith assessment arrangements was demotivating forNVQ candidates.

Management, teaching andplanning• The most effective coverage of key skills, for the full

range of students and trainees,was achieved by derivingas much evidence as possible from the mainprogrammes. This was then supplemented by specifictimetabled provision, where any other necessary skillscould be taught, and students could tackle additional,specially designed, key skills assignments.

• Successful completion of key skills units requiredcommitted and enthusiastic leadership. In schools, asingle co-ordinator often personally carried out most


MAIN FINDINGS


of the necessary planning,monitoring and assessment –something that cannot be sustained when all post-16students are involved. In colleges, a co-ordinatorusually managed a small team of key skills teachers.

• Other than in IT, relatively little formal teaching of keyskills took place in schools and by training providers. Agreater amount of formal teaching took place incolleges, mostly on GNVQ courses.

• Levels of key skills awareness were not high amongstthe large majority of GCE A-level staff not directlyinvolved in the initiative in the pilot schools andcolleges. Most GCE A-level teachers have still to beconvinced of the value of the qualification.

• Levels of awareness of key skills in the work-basedsector varied. Training providers offering modernapprenticeships and national traineeships generallycoped satisfactorily with the key skills. Other centresdelivering training programmes where key skills werenot mandatory were less successful. Many staff lackedconfidence and some centres did not have sufficientstaff with the appropriate expertise.

• Short-term planning was often satisfactory, but manyschools and training centres did not systematically mapout the complete coverage of the key skills units forGCE A-level students and NVQ trainees. This meantthat the most difficult aspects of the key skillsspecifications were often left until the last moment,which made it difficult for these candidates to completetheir portfolios.

Assessment• The pilot specifications made portfolio requirements

more manageable, and assessment morestraightforward, than in previous versions of the keyskills. However, a lack of clarity about the relativeimportance of different features of the specifications,and mixed messages from awarding bodies aboutprecisely what evidence would be required, causedunnecessary difficulties for centres.

• The specifications were more clearly written than inprevious units, but the educational language in whichthey were expressed was not well suited to manywork-based learners.

• The set assignments clarified the levels of work andstandards required for the key skills, and overallmade the assessment of key skills more rigorous.However, the assignments varied in quality, thecontexts in which they were set were ofteninappropriate for the work-based sector, and someaspects of the way in which they were marked wereunsatisfactory.

• Set assignments took up a disproportionate amount oftime, particularly in the first year of the pilot, and theexternal assessment arrangements generally causedmajor difficulties for NVQ centres. Some employerswere reluctant to allow apprentices time off work,especially where there was little flexibility over dates,and there were often practical problems in gettingtrainees to assessment venues.

• External assessment was not considered appropriatefor many work-based learners by trainers andemployers, and there was considerable resistance inthe sector to externally set tests. Many young peoplehad specifically chosen work-based training becausethey wished to avoid the formal assessment ofacademic programmes.

• Results on the set assignments in the first year of thepilot were generally poor. In some cases the outcomesdid not accurately reflect students’ and trainees’capabilities in the key skills. Greater familiarity with thedemands of the assignments and more realistic markschemes resulted in significantly improved performancein many centres in the second year.

• The Application of Number tests were tackledsuccessfully by the large majority of students inschools and mathematically-able students incolleges, mainly because the questions were similarin style and demand to those with which bothstudents and staff were familiar for generalcertificate of secondary education (GCSE). The testscaused more difficulties for those students incolleges who had not been successful in GCSEmathematics. Work-based trainees in vocationalareas such as engineering coped well with the tests,but pass rates were lower in those areas wherenumerical skills were considered less relevant.

• Assessment of portfolio work was usually rigorous, butit was time-consuming and often delayed until late inthe year.

• In most centres there was insufficient initial assessmentof students’ and trainees’ prior attainment in key skills,to ensure that teaching and training were matched toindividual needs.

• The three unitary awarding bodies jointly instituteduseful procedures to aid the standardisation of theirmarking of set assignments and, more recently, themoderation of student portfolios. Portfoliomoderation was frequently unsatisfactory at the end ofthe first year of the pilot, but better procedures andtraining of moderators led to a considerableimprovement in the second year.

For Government• It is clear from this pilot that the new key skills

qualification faces many difficulties. There is nocommon agreement across the 16–19 sector, inhigher education and amongst employers, about theneed for the qualification. The new qualification canhave little positive impact until these uncertaintiesare resolved.

For the Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (QCA)• Action is needed to raise awareness and understanding

of the key skills qualification amongst employers and inhigher education.

• Where the key skills qualification serves to accreditexisting skills, demonstrated in students’ other coursesand programmes, simple procedures need to beestablished to use this evidence to ensure thatbureaucracy is kept to a minimum.

• For students and trainees whose key skills need to bedeveloped, or whose main studies or training will notprovide the necessary portfolio evidence, centres needspecific advice on how the necessary support can beprovided most effectively.

• Exemplar materials are needed, from GCE A-level,GNVQ and NVQ programmes, which illustrate boththe standard and sufficiency of portfolio evidencerequired.

• The quality of external assignments or tests and theirmarking systems needs to be improved, and theirpurpose more clearly defined.

• The consistency and effectiveness of moderationwithin and between awarding bodies will need to becarefully monitored in view of the expected increase inthe number of candidates for the key skills qualificationfrom September 2000.

• Further discussion is needed with employers andtraining organisations about the purpose of externalassessment of key skills for work-based learners.

For the awarding bodies• Assessment training of the type successfully

introduced by the awarding bodies, where teacherswork together on real examples of candidates’ workwith guidance from senior moderators, should bemade available for all staff involved in work on keyskills.

• Awarding bodies need to clarify, for centres andmoderators, the amount of assessment that is needed,so that teachers are not doing more than necessary.

• Awarding bodies should provide prompt and detailedfeedback to centres on the performance of thosecandidates who fail the set assignments, to enable thecandidates and their teachers to take effective remedialaction.

• Awarding bodies need to ensure timely despatch ofmaterials to centres, and to improve their responsetime to queries about key skills.

• The senior moderators who have responsibility for themarking of set assignments, or other forms of externalassessment, should also write the assignments and theirmark schemes.

• Awarding bodies need to give early attention to therecruitment and training of the large numbers of extramoderators who will be needed for the expectedexpansion of candidate numbers from September2000.

For colleges, schools andtraining providers• If both teachers and learners are to be convinced of

the value of achieving the key skills qualification,those aspects of the specifications which will bringsomething new to students’ and trainees’ learningand will help them with their main studies orprogrammes need to be clearly identified andspecifically taught.

• Centres need to make arrangements for the effectiveassessment of students’ and trainees’ existing key skillson commencing their programmes.


ISSUES FORATTENTION:


• Centres need to plan effectively for full coverage of thekey skills units before students and trainees embark onthe qualification. On GCE A-level programmes this willneed to take account of the different combinations ofsubjects taken by students.

• The precise role of staff involved should be clearlydefined, in terms of the planning, teaching andassessment of the key skills. Where staff lack thenecessary experience or expertise, they should beprovided with suitable training and should havesufficient programmed time to carry out the workeffectively.

• Some specific timetabled provision will be needed inalmost all centres; this will have to be used flexibly to

meet the needs of students and trainees followingdifferent main courses and programmes, and withdiffering existing skills.

• Centres should start formal assessment of key skillsachievements at an early stage, in order to give thework necessary momentum.

• Most centres should seek ways to involve a widerrange of staff in the implementation of the key skillsqualification beyond the present relatively small core ofcommitted enthusiasts.

• The full resource implications of introducing the keyskills qualification need to be carefully considered,particularly by small specialist training providers.


GCE A-level programmes7. The majority of GCE A-level centres encountered

serious problems in implementing the key skillsqualification, and there were instances of significantachievement in only a small number. In several,wherestudents initially seemed to be doing well in buildingtheir portfolios, progress was not sustained as itproved difficult and time-consuming to collect andrecord evidence. Many students who had starteddoing all three key skills had dropped to just one ortwo in the second year of their courses. Severalcentres dropped out of the pilot at the end of the firstyear because of students’ lack of success.

8. The large majority of students were appropriatelyworking towards key skills Level 3. In a few cases,centres attempted to prepare students for Level 3 bydoing Level 2 first; this was a time-consuming andunnecessary strategy. A small proportion of studentsaimed for Level 2 in IT because of a lack of priorexperience, or in Application of Number because oflow attainment in GCSE mathematics.

9. In those centres visited which began the pilot with alltheir first year GCE A-level students in September1997, little was achieved by summer 1998, and in onlya few cases were these students able to achieve thefull award, or individual key skills units by summer1999. Centres were generally more successful wherethey involved only selected groups of students; someof these colleges and schools made good progresswith their students during the second year of thepilot.

10. However, even in those centres where a sizeablenumber of students were successful in some aspectsof the key skills, the pattern of performance acrossthe different key skills units was not uniform, andachievement was largely dependent on the particularcombination of GCE A-level subjects studied. Forexample, in one of the centres where the pilot hadoperated most effectively, only half of the studentswho started the pilot were expected to complete theIT unit at Level 3, and only about a third wereexpected to complete Level 3 in each ofCommunication and Application of Number.

11. Those centres in which GCE A-level students weremost successful in their key skills shared a number ofcharacteristics:

• they embarked on the pilot with relatively smallnumbers of students;

• the work was led by committed and energeticstaff;

• a collection of portfolio evidence had been carefullyplanned in advance, and it was usually derived froma manageable number of different sources;

• clear and straightforward assessment andrecording systems were used;

• senior management gave strong support to thepilot.

Application of Number

12. The amount of evidence for Application of Number inthe portfolios of GCE A-level students variedconsiderably between and often within centres.Generally, fewer students completed the key skills unitin Application of Number than in Communication orIT, though there were exceptions to this.

13. Where students were successful in building theirportfolios, the evidence came from a variety ofsources:primarily from students’ GCE A-level coursesor from separately designed assignments but also, insome school sixth forms, from prior GCSEcoursework in subjects such as geography and designtechnology, and from additional sources such as anindustrial enterprise project. Coverage was mostconsistent across the full range of students’ ability andsubject combinations where evidence came bothfrom GCE A-level courses and specifically designednumeracy assignments.

14. Where evidence came only from GCE A-levelsubjects, the amount of coverage depended on theparticular subjects and syllabuses studied. Studentswho were required to produce coursework wereparticularly advantaged. Much of the practical work inscience subjects, and case studies and fieldwork insubjects such as business studies and geography, couldbe used as evidence of appropriate numerical skills

ATTAINMENT ANDPROGRESS


with little or no additional work. Students doingsubjects such as modern languages, English literatureand history, not surprisingly, could generate littleevidence from their courses, and they neededadditional Application of Number assignments.

15. Although the number of completed portfolios inApplication of Number was relatively small, in almostall cases the quality of numerical work in them was atleast satisfactory and much of it was good, reflectingthe standards achieved by the students on their GCEA-level courses. A few portfolios were quiteoutstanding with, for example, highly effective use ofadvanced statistical techniques to test hypotheses insubjects such as biology and geography. Frequentlythe work exceeded the requirements for key skillsLevel 3, and some of it reached Level 4, though noneof it had been accredited at this higher level. Workwas generally well organised and presented, and madeuse of appropriate techniques. Calculations wereaccurate. Students had carried out well-focusedsurveys with adequate sample sizes, and presentedtheir findings in informative statistical graphs. Theyhandled large quantities of financial data competently.Numerical results were mostly supported by helpfulcommentary or analysis, though explanation of resultswas more limited in scope where students wereunaware of the key skills requirements forpresentation of findings.

16. In some of the portfolios observed during thecourse of the pilot, numerical work was limited inrange and in quality. Most of these students had littleinterest in numerical work and could not see itsrelevance for their other courses, or else hadpreviously achieved at only a modest level in GCSEmathematics.

Communication

17. Students generally achieved more in the second yearof the pilot than in the first year, but overall numbersof students completing the Communication unit atLevel 3 were low.

18. Coverage of the Level 3 specifications was fairlycomprehensive in completed portfolios. There wasusually substantial evidence of students’ skills inwriting, covering the range of requirements. Evidencefor students’ oral skills took the form of witnessstatements; some of these were full and clearlyrelated to the specifications, but most were brief andlacked detailed analysis.

19. Some students studying modern foreign languages atGCE A-level included written evidence in their

portfolios, which was largely, or entirely, in French orGerman. This work was of high quality and appearedto meet almost all of the evidence requirements.There was some uncertainty amongst awarding bodystaff about the acceptability of such evidence, and theofficial line taken by QCA appears to be that writtenevidence must be in English. If this is so, it will meanthat subjects that are fundamentally concerned withcommunication cannot provide evidence for thecommunication unit.

20. The standard of written work was mostly good.Some work produced was potentially of Level 4standard,but no centre was organised to accredit it atthis level. In most cases spelling was accurate,grammatical structure was correct, punctuation wasused appropriately and paragraphing was usedeffectively to organise ideas and material. Manystudents could convey meaning clearly in a variety offorms for different audiences. A minority of studentsobserved during the pilot employed more limitedstyles of writing and did not always use an appropriatestyle or register for more formal contexts. Veryoccasionally the technical standard of writing wasunsatisfactory. In some portfolios there was relativelylittle evidence of the skills of reviewing and redraftingwritten work, while in others this was a strength.

21. In some centres, students had done specific work todevelop their ability to write in pre-set formats suchas business letters and memos. However, the bulk ofwritten evidence was imported directly from GCE A-level courses, and its quality largely reflected theability of the student in the subject from which it wasdrawn. There was little, if any, evidence that writtenwork was improving as a result of the qualification;progress being made was that which would normallybe expected of students on the relevant GCE A-levelcourses.

22. There was clear evidence in a good number ofcentres of the progress made by students in givingoral presentations and in speaking for differentpurposes. This was the feature of the key skills mostoften regarded as significant by the studentsthemselves. Teachers often considered it to be themost distinctive part of the communication unit, andsome were prepared to give time to developing theseoral skills in their courses. Other, less successful,presentations highlighted the importance of activelydeveloping students’ communication skills, not justexpecting them to acquire them unaided.

23. Although the most able students were able to selectand synthesise information from a variety of different


sources very effectively, the lack of such skillsremained a fairly common weakness, evident in someportfolios and particularly in early attempts at the setassignments. One of the centres visited haddeveloped this aspect of the work to a high level andhad also encouraged students to write sophisticatedevaluations of their written assignments, somethingthat was rarely seen or developed beyond the mostbasic level in most centres. Students following arts-based courses should be developing these skillsanyway as an integral part of their studies, but it islikely that students following other subjectcombinations, where they are less systematicallypromoted, could profit most from being taught them.

Information Technology

24. There was great variation in the work observed inschools and colleges, both in the quality and quantityof work which students had produced and in the wayin which centres approached key skills. Most studentswere slow to accumulate the necessary evidence fortheir portfolios. As a result, completion was often leftuntil late in the second year of the course, by whichtime most students needed to give all their attentionto their GCE A-level subjects. Success rates at Level3 were often low.

25. In most of the colleges visited, and in some schools,the focus was mainly on identifying the IT key skillswithin GCE A-level subjects and achievingaccreditation for students’ existing skills. Studentshad varying degrees of success in identifyingappropriate evidence in their GCE A-level subjects,with those students taking subjects with a significantIT content having a significant advantage over thosestudents whose subjects contained little IT. The latterstudents were often encouraged to use IT toundertake some of their subject work, for example inword processing essays or undertaking research onthe Internet.

26. Where evidence came from other courses, therewere sometimes some very good examples ofappropriate IT use, but it was rare to find the broadcoverage necessary for the IT requirements of thequalification. Often there was good use of textprocessing, using a range of facilities appropriately toenhance the appearance of the document, andsometimes incorporating a picture or diagram, butthere was often no evidence of processing numericaldata or of editing graphical data.

27. In some centres, because of close attention to thespecifications, students were demonstratingcompetence in the use of a broad range of IT

methods. However, this had not been accompaniedby sufficient emphasis on the students’ ability to plantheir work, to decide for themselves when and howto use IT and to design documents. Since these areessential IT key skills, it was regrettable that thespecifications appeared to push teachers away fromtheir development rather than towards it.

28. There was generally a lack of opportunity forstudents to develop their key skills, for example fromLevel 2 to Level 3. Very few centres enabled studentsto achieve their key skills at Level 4, even where theywere taking GCE A-level computing.

GNVQ programmes29. From their introduction in 1992, all GNVQ

programmes have incorporated key skills units. Unliketheir counterparts teaching GCE A-level courses andmost NVQ programmes, GNVQ teachers involved inthe pilot were therefore already familiar with the ideaof key skills, and needed only to adapt existingmethods of teaching and assessment, rather thanintroduce something that was completely new. Thesubstantial coursework requirements of GNVQ alsomeant that GNVQ students generally had moreopportunities to produce key skills evidence than didstudents doing GCE A-level courses or trainees onNVQ programmes.

30. The standard of key skills work produced byAdvanced GNVQ students for their portfolios wasgenerally satisfactory, and in some cases good. AtIntermediate level, work was more variable, but themajority of it was at least satisfactory. The pilotspecifications and exemplification of standardsprovided by the set assignments contributed to keyskills work of a more consistently appropriatestandard than was previously the case within GNVQcourses.

31. In colleges, much of the key skills work was integratedinto the vocational course work. In schools, the newevidence requirements in the specifications tended toincrease the amount of key skills work generated fromspecially designed assignments, though there were stillsome examples where the key skills were effectivelyintegrated into vocational units.

32. Most Intermediate students were on course tocomplete their key skills portfolios by the end oftheir one-year course, though a widespread lack ofsuccess on the set assignments meant that mostwere dependent on the awarding bodies’reconsideration arrangements to achieve the units.


Most Advanced GNVQ students achievedsatisfactory coverage of the key skills. In a fewcentres, students completed particular key skills unitsin the first year of their two-year courses, but inothers completion of portfolios was left to the lastminute, when it was as hurried as it had often beenin the past on GNVQ courses.

33. Key skills work in the Part One GNVQ courses wasdominated by the set assignments and, well into thesecond year of the course, many students had littleother key skills evidence in their portfolios. Someschools improved the quality of key skills work byintroducing specially designed assignments.

Application of Number

34. The large majority of numerical work seen in GNVQportfolios, at both Advanced and Intermediate levels,was at least satisfactory. Performance was mostlyfairly uniform at Advanced level, with just a fewexamples of particularly good use of numericalmethods. There was considerably more variation atIntermediate level, with some very poor portfolios,but rather more that were very good. The fact thatthe new specifications made the requirements clearercontributed in part to the quality of this work, thoughthe expertise of staff in the centres remained themost important factor.

35. Suitable coverage of the evidence requirements forthe Application of Number unit was achieved atIntermediate level in almost all of the centres visited.At Advanced level, students in many centres wereslow to accumulate necessary evidence, but thequantity of numerical work was mostly satisfactory.In school sixth forms, most of the good work camefrom specially devised assignments; in colleges morecame directly from vocational coursework. In thebest work, students demonstrated competenceacross a wide range of skills and could applyappropriate numerical methods effectively in realisticcontexts. They showed the ability to collect andcollate appropriate data, and presentation of resultsand findings was often impressive. In one sixth form,students included evidence from GCE A-levelsubjects such as psychology in their portfolios, someof it involving quite sophisticated statisticaltechniques.

36. Where work was less than satisfactory, Advanced-level students were really operating only at Level 2;and at Intermediate level, students showed little realunderstanding of what they were doing, even thoughthey had technically met some of the requirements.

37. In some colleges and schools, students starting withrelatively weak mathematical attainment showedprogress in their numerical skills as a consequence ofthe attention given to key skills. This was particularlytrue where there were clear and strong links with thevocational units, so that students could understandjust why they needed to develop and use theirnumerical skills.

Communication

38. Overall, key skills Communication work at Level 3was satisfactory. Advanced GNVQ students usuallystarted with suitable skills, including the ability tolisten and speak with confidence in a range ofcontexts, to write accurately, to organise materials,and to read and research a range of texts,summarising and redrafting where appropriate. Therewas evidence in portfolios that the requirements ofthe GNVQ courses had encouraged students toextend their skills, by using varied forms of sentencestructures and varying the choice of vocabulary toconvey clear meaning.

39. In the best Advanced work, students planned theirown tasks, worked independently or collaborativelyas required, and demonstrated the ability to useCommunication skills in a range of challengingprojects and assignments. The material was wellmatched to the students’ needs, and the work theyproduced was presented in a clear and relevantmanner, demonstrating an awareness of structure,style and appropriate vocabulary.

40. Where attainment and progress were less thansatisfactory, the Communication skills had notemerged from the vocational units, either because ofthe lack of expertise of the vocational tutor orbecause no specialist support and advice wasavailable. In a few cases, students had a relatively poorgrasp of the more formal aspects of English, and thisproved a severe handicap.

41. Even allowing for the difference in level of demand,key skills work in Communication was generallyweaker at Intermediate than at Advanced level.Students with low achievement in GCSE English(typically grades D,E or F) needed particular help withgrammar, punctuation and spelling. Many found itdifficult to undertake research and to producereports that were clear and coherent. They often didnot plan their work and were weak at re-drafting.However, there were examples where students madesignificant progress in their Communication skillsbecause programmes of work were well-matched tostudents’ individual needs.


Information Technology

42. Completed portfolios generally provided suitablecoverage of the key skills specifications, and thestandard of IT work ranged from satisfactory togood.

43. In the best work on Advanced courses, studentswere well on their way to completing theirportfolios by the end of their first year. They hadproduced a good range of evidence, with someexamples of a very high standard of achievement.There were essays and reports that were wellpresented and made good use of a range of ITfacilities. Some particularly impressive pieces ofwork were produced by students based on theirwork placements, making use of realistic materialsand producing documents to the standard requiredby the companies involved.

44. Students came to GNVQ courses with a wide rangeof prior attainment in IT, and this was frequentlyreflected in their work in the early stages of thecourse. However, most made good progress, largelybecause the use of IT was so central to their GNVQcourse.

45. Intermediate GNVQ students mostly completedtheir IT key skills portfolios by the end of the course.Work was of a standard appropriate to the Level 2requirements if these were interpreted in a narrowsense, but these students often failed to demonstratethe ability to plan, to decide and to design. In someportfolios, students made frequent use of IT tobenefit their vocational work, but in others it wasclear that the students had produced the number ofpieces of work which were required to meet the ITrequirements, but had made very little use of IT in thecourse of doing their vocational work. In a fewinstances there was very little IT evidence inportfolios.

NVQ programmes46. Many NVQ centres experienced major difficulties in

implementing the key skills qualification. A highproportion of centres either withdrew from the pilot,or were not sufficiently active to provide inspectorswith useful feedback.

47. The centres that were visited were involved in thepilot because of their particular interest in key skills;they included the most highly motivated staff, whodisplayed high levels of commitment to thedevelopment of the key skills qualification. Despite

some difficulties, most centres that remained at theend of the second year of the pilot had candidateswho were progressing well. Portfolios containedwork of a high standard, which was clearly cross-referenced to NVQ evidence.

48. Where centres were successful, effective programmeplanning was a key feature of the provision. The keyskills were carefully integrated into the NVQ trainingand assessment processes. Where trainees’ work didnot cover some parts of the key skills units, work-related activities were developed to fill the gaps. Lesssuccessful centres considered the key skills units inisolation from the rest of the programme and tendedto address them only when the NVQ was nearingcompletion.

49. Trainees generally produced good-quality workwhere the key skills could be seen to be directlyrelevant to their vocational competence. Examplesincluded written reports and oral presentations,supported well by projector slides and other visualaids. Trainees similarly developed a range of IT skillsappropriate to their vocational programme. Inengineering, NVQ trainees displayed soundnumerical skills; however, in other occupationalsector – such as administration and care, and hairand beauty – achievement in Application of Numberwas constrained by the perception of its irrelevanceto NVQ programmes and to work roles.

50. In the successful centres the rate of progress in keyskills was equivalent to that in trainees’ main NVQprogrammes.

51. In some centres the evidence in trainees’ portfolioswas not linked sufficiently clearly to the performancecriteria in the key skills units. This made it difficult toassess whether trainees had covered the skills andknowledge adequately. In one centre, analysis ofevidence in one trainee’s portfolio suggested that hehad not covered the units satisfactorily and shouldnot have claimed the award.

Performance on setassignments and Application ofNumber tests52. There was considerable variation in the pattern of

results in set assignments, but outcomes in themajority of centres in the first year of the pilot weremuch poorer than expected, and both staff andstudents or trainees found the assignments ademoralising experience.


53. In the Level 2 set assignments, candidates generallyperformed best in IT, with reasonable proportions ofstudents achieving the necessary standard in mostcentres. Results were more variable between centresin Communication; in some, results were good, but inothers few, if any, students were successful.Performance in Application of Number was the leastpredictable: in most centres this was the leastsuccessful of the key skills, but in a few, all studentspassed at the first attempt.

54. Success rates in the Level 3 set assignments wereconsistently low across all three key skills in allcentres visited in the first year of the pilot.Frequently, very able students failed for relativelytrivial reasons, even though the overall standard oftheir work was high. For the set assignments (or theirequivalents) used in the awarding bodies’ ownassessment models, teachers did not appreciate howthe assignments were marked, and they were verycritical about the lack of detailed feedback on howtheir students had performed.

55. Although in some centres students showed littleimprovement on their second attempt at the set

assignment, in most cases results improved markedlyin the second year of the pilot. This was primarilybecause teachers were much clearer about thedemands of the assignments, and prepared theirstudents more effectively. More realistic markingsystems, which ensured that results were better-matched to students’ performance, also contributedto the improvement in results.

56. Results in the Application of Number tests weregenerally satisfactory in the schools visited. Pass ratesat Level 3 were almost invariably high for GCE A-levelstudents, who found the tests similar in style to, andcertainly no more demanding than, GCSEmathematics. In colleges, where some students hadnot been so successful in GCSE, pass rates on thetests were not so high. Some of the mostmathematically able students taking the tests foundthem trivial and were highly critical of them; most,however, were content to do a test which they couldpass quite easily. Performance amongst NVQ traineesvaried, depending on their occupational area; those inengineering and other mathematically related areasdid well, while those in occupations which requiredfew numerical skills were less successful.


STUDENTS’ ANDTRAINEES’ RESPONSES57. Most of the college and school sixth-form students

involved in the pilot were, initially, reasonablypositive about the initiative, and took it seriously.Their attitudes were often influenced by theenthusiasm of their teachers who encouraged themto take part. For GNVQ students the key skillsformed an integral part of their main qualification,and they accepted it as such. In some centres theGCE A-level students had volunteered to take part,but in a few others some of the students werereluctant recruits, who could not see the point inwhat they were doing.

58. Almost all GCE A-level students expected thatinvolvement in the pilot would be helpful to them intheir university applications. Some consequentlydiscovered that most admissions tutors, as well aslocal employers, knew nothing about the key skillsqualification, and this had a serious impact on theircommitment to the work,and on the credibility of thequalification.

59. It was rare for work-based trainees to feel motivatedby the key skills. Many trainees saw them asirrelevant or only indirectly relevant to the rest oftheir training programme. Even where traineesadmitted they saw some benefit in key skills, theywere not motivated by the process of doing them. Insome cases, candidates resented the fact that keyskills had been introduced late into theirprogrammes. Some trainees complained abouthaving to attend specialist key skills courses; in theirview it would have been better to spend off-the-job-training sessions covering NVQ topics. Trainees feltthat the key skills award meant a great deal of extrawork for relatively little return. The set assignmentsand tests encountered substantial resistance, and hada demotivating effect on many trainees, who hadchosen to undertake NVQs partly to avoidexaminations and tests. Trainees felt that significantamounts of time were taken away from their normalwork to prepare for and complete externalassessments.

60. The large majority of students and trainees hadcopies of the key skills specifications. However, in afew post-16 centres, candidates had not seen these

specifications and had no idea of the requirements ofthe qualification. Furthermore, they had noresponsibility for the identification or collection ofevidence – this was entirely in the hands of theirteachers or trainers. Key Stage 4 students doing keyskills as a component of the Part One GNVQ weregenerally not required to take any responsibility forgathering or organising necessary evidence. This wasall done by the teacher, with the result that thestudents had little appreciation of the significance ofthe key skills.

61. Most candidates had a reasonable grasp of the overallstructure of the qualification, and understood whatwas required of them for the evidence ofachievement. Some were baffled by the language ofthe specifications, and this was a particular problemfor work-based trainees. Most students had a generalappreciation of the standards required. In the secondyear of the pilot, well-focused teaching of particularkey skills observed in a few centres gave students amuch clearer understanding of what the specificationsmeant for their own work.

62. Many students and trainees were well organised intheir collection and collation of key skills evidence,but others had done very little, even when they hadtheoretically been working on the qualification for asubstantial period of time. Some generatedconsiderable amounts of relevant work, but therewere also instances where they missed possiblesources of evidence. Recording of evidence wasmore variable. In some cases students’ records wereaccurate and up to date, while in other centresstudents had recorded nothing, even when they werewell into the second year of their courses.

63. NVQ trainees often lacked clear guidance oncollecting evidence for the key skills units,particularly in the first year of the pilot when staffwere familiarising themselves with the unitrequirements.

64. In the early stages, many GCE A-level students didnot find the key skills particularly time-consuming.However, pressures built up as the demands of theirmain studies became more evident and, because


they had often put off the key skills work until latein their programmes, many students found that theycould not cope with both the key skills and theirAdvanced-level courses. By the second year of thepilot, large numbers of students had abandonedwork on the key skills.

65. One group of adult trainees undertook the key skillsaward in isolation, and used the experience tofamiliarise themselves with competence-basedlearning. This proved to be a valuable introduction tothe new accreditation model.


GNVQ programmes66. In many centres, key skills arrangements for GNVQ

courses were left largely unchanged on theintroduction of the pilot qualification. In a few collegesincreased specialist teaching of IT, and greater co-ordination of Application of Number by mathematicsspecialists, led to a more consistent approach to thesekey skills across different vocational areas.

GCE A-level programmes67. Most GCE A-level centres embarked on the key skills

pilot with no clear sense of where they were going.They generally started with quite sound, short-termplans for how some aspects of the key skills would beachieved, but lacked the necessary long-term strategyto guarantee complete coverage of the full key skillsunits.

68. Arrangements for dealing with key skills variedconsiderably between pilot centres. To a large extentthese differences reflected the variety of perceptionsand uncertainties about the purpose of the key skillsqualification. In most centres, the qualification wasregarded just as a means of accrediting what thestudents could already do; in a small number, it wasused as a means of developing students’ skills.

69. Some, but not all, GCE A-level centres learned fromtheir experiences in the first year of the pilot, andwere operating more successfully in the second year.Two school sixth forms completely transformed thequality of their key skills work in Application ofNumber and Communication in the second year ofthe pilot by the appointment of very capable,committed staff, and by generous time allocations.Three of the colleges visited appointed a key skills co-ordinator and established a team of specialist staff toimprove their work in this area.

70. In a substantial minority of GCE A-level centres, theassumption was made that all evidence would occurnaturally within GCE A-level courses, or perhaps fromother aspects of the students’ lives in or out of schoolor college, such as Young Enterprise or workexperience. In these centres, no additional provision

was made for the key skills. Staff increasingly recognisedthat some additional provision would be needed at alater stage, though they were uncertain about whatform this would take. In only a small minority of theschools had the key skills been mapped in detail againstGCE A-level subjects, though this was generally givenmore attention in the colleges.

71. In about a quarter of school sixth forms, existingtimetabled provision (for example general studies)had either been re-allocated to key skills,or there hadbeen a shift in emphasis within additional studies, suchas the Oxford, Cambridge & RSA Examinations(OCR) Diploma of Achievement, to accommodatethe key skills. In most of these schools, studentsinitially made quite good progress in building their keyskills portfolios. However, where the students weredoing the key skills in addition to another suchqualification, they found the pressure to producework too great, and by the second year these centreshad dropped out of the pilot to concentrate on theexisting provision.

72. In the remaining schools and colleges, some additionaltime had been found for key skills, often in the formof specialist workshops or sessions where studentscould obtain advice on their tracking and recording ofkey skills. In some centres, this time was provided foronly one or two of the key skills, most commonly IT.Students generally found this support helpful,although in a few cases, because staff wereinsufficiently well prepared, the time was not used toparticularly good effect.

73. Some of the colleges visited used the ComputerLiteracy and Information Technology (CLAIT)qualification as a means of supporting studentsundertaking IT key skills at Level 3. While the skillsthat students developed through this qualificationwere useful, they were below the standard required atLevel 3 and, without further teacher support, wereinsufficient for students to achieve IT key skills at thatlevel. The decision to develop IT skills in this way waspartly a consequence of funding opportunitiesavailable through the CLAIT qualification. It resultedin double accreditation and unnecessary expense ondouble entries.

PROGRAMMEMANAGEMENT


74. In one school sixth form, no attempt was made toobtain evidence from GCE A-level students’ maincourses, and the intention was that all the necessaryevidence should be generated in timetabled key skillslessons. This was an inefficient approach, and theundifferentiated provision in key skills classes meantthat students were often insufficiently challenged.

75. There were a few instances of the use of prior GCSEcoursework by GCE A-level students in school sixthforms as key skills evidence in portfolios. The nature,quantity and quality of this coursework had enabledseveral able students to complete their Level 3portfolios, in particular key skills units, entirely on thebasis of this evidence. For other students, however,only some parts of their GCSE projects wereappropriate for Level 3, with other work relevant tokey skills being more typical of Level 2. It was moredifficult for college students, who had done theirGCSEs in a different institution, to gain access to thiskind of evidence.

76. The most effective coverage of key skills, for bothGNVQ and GCE A-level students, came from acombination of evidence from main course subjectsand from specially designed key skills assignments.However, relatively few centres managed to strike agood balance between these two, both by puttingsuitable specialist teaching in place to enable studentsto develop and demonstrate necessary skills, and alsoby seeking to ensure that as much of the key skillsevidence as possible was set firmly and naturally in thecontext of the students’ main courses or otheractivities.

77. Most schools and colleges appointed a key skillsco-ordinator for the pilot, or already had someonewith that responsibility. In most cases, this meantthat responsibility for planning, coverage andassessment of the key skills was clearly defined.The quality of co-ordination was an importantfactor in determining how successfully the pilotwas implemented; the work carried out by some ofthe co-ordinators, often in difficult circumstances,was impressive. In the most successful centres, theco-ordinator was usually supported by a smallteam of key skills specialists. There was generallyless clarity about the role and responsibility ofGCE A-level teachers whose subjects mightcontribute to portfolio evidence.

78. In several centres, sometimes as a consequence of

lessons learned earlier in the pilot, representativesfrom each of the main GCE A-level subjectdepartments took responsibility for identifying andsometimes, where appropriate, assessing key skillsevidence. To do this effectively they were given timefor induction training and for identifying specificassignments within their own subjects which couldrealistically be expected to contribute to key skills. Atthe time they were observed these initiatives werestill at an early stage, but they had the potential tomake an important contribution to key skillsportfolios, provided that they focused on specificpieces of work rather than becoming general mappingexercises.

NVQ programmes79. Amongst those centres which dropped out of the

pilot, many cited programme management difficultiesas a prime reason. A variety of difficulties wereexperienced, including a lack of necessary resources.Two centres withdrew from the pilot because keyskills staff left the organisations. Without suchspecialist staff, these organisations could not resourcethe necessary development work to sustain the pilotactivities. In addition, training providers found that theorganisational demands of the key skills were not wellsuited to the roll-on, roll-off nature of work-basedprogrammes.

80. There was little support from employers for work onthe key skills qualification. Employers complained athaving to release apprentices from work to sitexternal tests and assignments. Trainees found thereluctance of their employers to release themstressful, and some had the additional pressure ofhaving to catch up on work they had missed upontheir return. The lack of flexibility over assessmentdates and times caused employers particulardifficulties. One national training provider reportedthat employers in retail were withdrawing theirinvolvement in modern apprenticeship and nationaltraineeship programmes because of the substantialtime and effort required for the key skills units.

81. A lack of sufficient modern computer equipmenthampered the effective development of key skills ITcapability in some training providers, colleges andschools. This is a resource issue which will becomemore acute when the key skills qualification movesout of its pilot phase and the numbers of students andtrainees involved become much greater.


TEACHING, TRAININGAND LEARNINGSUPPORTGCE A-level and GNVQprogrammes82. Other than in IT, relatively little formal teaching of key

skills took place in the pilot schools and colleges.Where staff were timetabled, this was usually to helpstudents identify evidence, to assess the key skills andto fill in records or log sheets.

83. However, there were some examples where staffproduced assignments of good quality to enablestudents to demonstrate key skills capability andsometimes to develop the necessary skills. In a fewinstances, staff also successfully helped students tounderstand and develop those features of their GCEA-level and GNVQ work needed to meet the keyskills specifications. Some of the most effectiveteaching was observed in a centre where staff hadclearly and systematically identified those skills inCommunication and Application of Number whichwould enhance students’ GCE A-level studies, andwhich would not specifically be addressed on most ofthe GCE A-level courses.

84. In colleges, the introduction of the new key skills in ITresulted in some changes in styles of teaching.Teachers worked in teams to prepare teaching andassessment materials, to maximise preparation timeand to staff IT workshops. They also made effectiveuse of IT equipment in their teaching methods, forexample, in using interactive video screens and videoprojects. In most IT lessons in school sixth forms,students were taught by experienced staff, who hadoften previously taught other IT courses as part of aprogramme of additional or general studies.

85. Where large numbers of students were undertakingthe key skills qualifications, sixth-form pastoral tutorssometimes had responsibility for monitoring students’work. The quality of this supervision varieddepending on the level of understanding andcommitment of the tutors to the process.

Supervision was more effective when it wasundertaken by a specialist team of key skills tutors,with the ability to assess the work as well as tomonitor the collection of evidence.

86. Most of the staff with specific responsibility for keyskills had a sound understanding of the unitrequirements. A few, who were coming to key skillsfor the first time, expressed some uncertainty aboutthe standards required, and the difference in someareas between what was required at Level 2 and atLevel 3. There was little indication of a widerawareness of the key skills requirements amongstmost GCE A-level teachers from whose coursesstudents might be expected to produce key skillsevidence.

87. Where key skills work was undertaken byexperienced vocational teachers in GNVQ courses, itwas usually satisfactory. However, in some cases keyskills opportunities were not always fully exploited,and some less experienced GNVQ teachers lackedthe specialist knowledge and understanding to dealeffectively with the full range of the key skillsspecifications.

NVQ programmes88. In work-based training, staffing arrangements for

the key skills varied, according to the size of thecentre, its vocational diversity and individual staffexpertise. Some centres allocated an existingmember of staff to take on key skills responsibilities,while others drafted in outside specialists on a part-time basis. One pilot centre sub-contracted its keyskills provision to a local college. Some centresprovided formal learning sessions for trainees,usually to cover topics not normally done as part ofthe NVQ programme.

89. In some centres, staff invested considerable time andresources in developing their competence and


confidence in training and assessing key skills. Inothers, at times, staff attempted to deliver the unitswithout adequate knowledge and skills themselves,particularly in the first year of the pilot.

90. Where the key skills were an integral part of theNVQ standards, NVQ tutors were both competent

and confident to deliver and assess them. Forexample, the Communication unit presented nodifficulties for staff whose candidates were takingNVQs in administration, but it was a much greaterchallenge for tutors in the engineering sector, whohad not previously been required to deal withcommunication skills.


ASSESSMENT ANDRECORDINGCentre-based assessment91. In most centres there was insufficient initial

assessment of students’ and trainees’ attainment inkey skills on commencing programmes of work, toensure that teaching and tutorial support wasmatched to individual needs. A few instances of suchinitial assessment were observed in the best NVQpractice, but in most centres groups of trainees wereall subjected to a common training and assessmentprogramme in the key skills, irrespective of individualcircumstances.

92. With a few exceptions, relatively little formalportfolio assessment of key skills was carried out forGCE A-level students in the first year of the pilot, andin some centres no key skills work had been assessedby half way through the second year of the pilot.Where work was assessed, it was mostly donecarefully and rigorously by staff with appropriateexpertise in the relevant key skill. However, therewere a few instances in both IT and Application ofNumber where some work had been signed off bynon-specialist staff when it was not up to the standardrequired, or was incorrectly assessed to have met therequirements of the specifications. In assessingCommunication key skills, some vocational teachersfailed to take account of errors in spelling,punctuation and expression.

93. There was considerable variation in approaches torecording assessments, partly as a result of a lack ofclear, early advice from the awarding bodies. In somecentres there was an uncertainty over whethermoderators would require records of assessmentsagainst the performance criteria as well as against theevidence indicators, and as a result some teacherswere assessing and recording in considerably moredetail than should be necessary.

94. Most colleges and schools had internal moderationor verification systems in place, but they variedconsiderably in their capacity to ensureconsistency of assessment between differentcourses and classes. NVQ centres also hadqualified internal verifiers in place, although somewere not confident in their knowledge of the

standards required. Teachers in schools which hadno experience of GNVQ assessment wereunderstandably puzzled by their awarding body’srequirement that key skills assessments should beinternally verified, if this meant that a teacher whowas not a specialist was checking the assessmentsof a teacher who was.

95. Most staff found the formal assessment and recordingof key skills to be very time-consuming. Wherenumbers of students involved were small this was nota major problem, but with large groups of students itmade heavy demands on staff.

Moderation96. The main awarding bodies all had moderation

systems in place, for the purpose of ensuringaccuracy and consistency of assessment acrosscentres. Some serious problems arose in the firstround of the moderation procedures in 1998.Requirements for submission of samples of work, andmixed messages from some of the moderators, ledto uncertainty about the relationship of theperformance criteria to evidence indicators. Someawarding body moderators were apparentlyexpecting completed portfolios to be available fortheir scrutiny in May; this was unrealistic both forAdvanced-level students on two-year courses andfor Intermediate level GNVQ students, who wouldbe working to complete their portfolios right up tothe end of the summer term. There was a generalconfusion in centres over whether moderators werechecking on the standard of work or on completionof portfolios.

97. The system of moderation improved considerablyin the second year of the pilot. Before the mainperiod of moderation, senior moderators fromeach of the awarding bodies met to agree onstandards and sufficiency of evidence requirementsfor portfolios, and to produce common guidancefor moderators. Helpful training sessions were thenorganised by each awarding body for their teams ofmoderators in each key skill, to ensure that theywere familiar with these agreed expectations, andwere taking a common approach to moderation.


The requirements on centres were clearer than inthe first year. Early indications suggested thatmoderation procedures were operating in asatisfactory way in summer 1999, and some centreswere appreciative of the feedback that they hadreceived.

98. During the pilot, since numbers of candidates wererelatively small, awarding bodies needed only smallteams of moderators, drawn largely from existinggroups of experienced verifiers and teachers.However, this pool of expertise is limited, and it isdifficult to see from where sufficient suitablepersonnel can be recruited to carry out moderationwhen the qualification is launched nationally for allpost-16 students later in 2000.

External assessment99. There were problems with particular aspects of

some of the key skills set assignments inApplication of Number and IT; and inCommunication there was some variation inquality and difficulty between the assignmentsproduced by different awarding bodies. However,the assignments were mostly suitable for theirpurpose. They made an important contribution toclarifying the standards required in the key skillsunits and increased the rigour of their assessment.The design of the assignments was broadlysatisfactory, but the marking systems were lessthan adequate. The initial marking systems weretoo stringent. There were improvements in thesecond year of the pilot, but some weaknessesremained. The fact that the senior moderatorsresponsible for supervision of the marking of theQCA assignments had no part in writing them wasa major shortcoming of the process.

100.Teachers and trainers using the QCA model ofassessment in the first year of the pilot expressedmajor concerns about the time taken up by the setassignment and its impact on vocational

programmes of work. These concerns werereduced, but not completely eliminated, by changesin administration and marking in the second year.Problems were fewer in the Edexcel Foundation andOCR assessment models, whose externalcomponents required no preparatory work andwere externally assessed. Despite reservationsabout some practical aspects of implementation,most GCE A-level teachers felt that an externalcomponent of assessment was important for thecredibility of the key skills qualification, and this viewwas generally shared by GNVQ teachers.

101. While the move to external marking of the QCA setassignments in the second year of the pilot reducedthe pressure on teachers, it resulted in their havingless information on weaknesses in candidates’performance. Lack of feedback to centres onindividual students’ work on the set assignmentsreduced the effectiveness of any subsequent actiontaken to prepare candidates for a further attempt atthe assignment. Many centres felt that candidates’results arrived too late for them to make properdecisions about entry for the next round ofassessments.

102. Employers and training providers had considerablereservations about the place of external elements inthe assessment of key skills. The timing of externalassessments, geared to the academic year, was ofteninappropriate for the more flexible nature of NVQprogrammes. Staff generally felt that an academicstyle of testing was unsuitable for trainees who hadselected a competence-based assessment route.

103. The awarding bodies initiated effective procedures toensure consistency of assessment of the setassignments, both across bodies for the QCAassessment model, and internally within their ownassessment models. No formal procedures were inplace to ensure consistency across the differentmodels, where in some cases marking systems werequite different.


104. Support for teachers and trainers in the planning,teaching and assessment of the new key skills unitswas variable in the first year of the pilot. Some stafffound sessions organised by the awarding bodies tobe useful, and they received helpful on-going advice.However, a greater number were critical of the lack ofexternal support for the initiative, and of the delays inreceiving relevant materials.

105. Support in the second year of the pilot was generallybetter focused. The training for assessors, organisedby the awarding bodies in autumn 1998, was usefuland was much appreciated by those whoparticipated. It provided staff with first-hand, sharedassessment experience and direct advice from seniormoderators. At the same time, the materials usedprovided helpful exemplification of standards. Theeffectiveness of these sessions highlighted the needfor this kind of training in the national supportprogramme for the launch of key skills in September2000.

106. There were some instances of effective in-house staffdevelopment. In one GCE A-level centre, volunteersfrom 12 subject departments attended a range ofpreparatory meetings, which included sessions wherethey jointly worked through a piece of geographycoursework to identify and assess key skillsopportunities. In another school representatives fromeach of the faculties underwent formal assessortraining, focused specifically on key skills, and funded bythe local Training and Enterprise Council. In both ofthese cases the teachers involved were given sufficienttime to carry out the necessary work in a thoroughway. In some colleges staff undertook the key skillspractitioners award, which prepared them well forteaching key skills. In some NVQ centres staff wereworking towards their own key skills units as part oftheir on-going development. These initiatives toincrease staff involvement, by focusing on a limitednumber of staff likely to be sympathetic to key skills,were more successful than attempts at generalawareness raising across the staff as a whole.

SUPPORT ANDGUIDANCE FORCENTRES

PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS QUALIFICATION 1997-99 of new key skills qualification 1997-99.pdf · 1....

Documents

Transcript of PILOT OF NEW KEY SKILLS QUALIFICATION 1997-99 of new key skills qualification 1997-99.pdf · 1....