This study has been an important part of my life for over a decade. As a result, one of the key difficulties I have experienced in these final months has been to know when to stop! This last decade, since the study was conceived in 1998, has seen many developments in assessment practice at national level, and looking back through the data collected for the present study, serves to remind me how practice in this area has evolved.
The present research focused on the change in assessment practice of PE teachers between 2000 and 2006 in Riverside Partnership. However, although 2006 was a cut off point for the data collected for the present study, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the pace of developments in assessment at a national level has slowed down. Indeed, since 2006 the focus on assessment within the SNS has sharpened. The main research findings of the present study provide evidence of change in assessment practice in PE in many schools across the partnership, with teachers moving towards the notion of ‘good practice’ in assessment in PE promoted by Ofsted (2003b). There is clear evidence that, whilst teacher observation continues to be an important part of their overall assessment strategy, the PE teachers, in Riverside Partnership now use a wider range of methods to inform their assessment judgements. The programme of CPD, which supported the implementation of the SNS, coupled with the Ofsted inspection regime has influenced these changes in the PE teachers’
assessment practice.
At a national level, there is evidence to suggest that these developments in assessment in PE are continuing, although, according to Ofsted, there are still areas requiring improvement. In 2009, following the most recent review of practice in a sample of primary and secondary schools in PE from 2005 to 2008 Ofsted (2009, p.5) concluded that:
The better schools visited, assessed, recorded and tracked pupils’ progress systematically. However, because there is no
common assessment strategy nationally, inconsistencies remained in judging pupils standards and achievements accurately.
This conclusion is of interest to me, for whilst this 3-year evaluation of PE in 99 primary schools and 84 secondary schools was not completed until 2008, it commenced during the time of the present study. Of particular interest is the key concern, raised by Ofsted, of a lack of a ‘common assessment strategy nationally’. In 2008, QCA in partnership with the SNS began to develop a national approach to assessment known as Assessing Pupils’ Progress project (APP):
Assessing pupils’ progress (APP) is a national approach to assessment that equips teachers to make judgements on pupils’
progress [...] APP helps teachers to fine-tune their
understanding o f pupils needs and tailor their planning and teaching accordingly, by enabling them to...make reliable judgements related to national standards drawing on a wide
range o f evidence (QCA, 2009, p.l).
This project, like the SNS, cites the work of the ARG (1999 to 2010), as its theoretical underpinning. However, writing in 2009, Marshall, James and the ARG.suggest that this government-developed version of assessment for learning:
...shares little o f the “spirit” o f the definition and principles from the Assessment Reform Group, although the documentation
quotes them. Indeed, Assessing Pupils’ Progress, the in-class assessment system that is a part o f the government’s version o f assessment fo r learning in England, is more to do with
specifying frequent summative assessment than formative assessment (p.28).
The potential impact of this national project, which is being rolled out through the core and foundation subjects of the National Curriculum, is of interest to me both professionally and for my future research activity. It is also of interest, as it appears to be a further example of the work of leading theoreticians of the day being mediated by the policy makers to drive wholesale changes in teachers’ classroom practice in a particular way.
Whilst the legitimacy of political involvement in education policy is not in doubt, as Mansell, James and the ARG (2009, p.28) observe:
While no one would contest the right o f elected politicians to determine overall assessment policy, their involvement in specifying technical details o f assessment models and procedures raises questions over whether they, and some o f
their advisers, are sufficiently qualified to do so at such a detailed level.
Since this study was completed the NCPE (2000) has been revised, and the new version, implemented in 2008 is based on an educational, rather than a sporting construct of PE. Indeed, the sport activities have now completely disappeared from the documentation, being replaced by key concepts and key processes that must be taught through practical contexts. Thus, whilst pupils are required to “outwit opponents” or undertake “movement replication”, there is no mention of any specific activities, games or sports by name. The impact of this view of knowledge in the revised curriculum (NCPE, 2008) on teachers’ assessment practice remains to be seen. Whilst this would be of interest to me for future research, the Conservative led coalition government, which took over from New Labour in May 2010, is already proposing that a much-reduced National Curriculum will be implemented from 2013, in which PE may not even be included.
In this postscript, I have reflected on my experience of undertaking this study and what I have learned from taking part in this Doctoral programme.
I have definitely come to appreciate just how difficult it is to do research at this level with a full time job and young children. My daughters were 2 and
5 respectively when I started, 15 and 17 by the time I finished. On the one hand, my work and family commitments have definitely increased the time it has taken me to complete this study. On the other hand, this has meant that data is available for a seven-year period. As a result, it has been possible to look at how the assessment practice of the PE teachers in
Riverside Partnership has changed over this period, against a background of so many developments in assessment practice at national level, within the policy context of the NCPE (2000) and the Ofsted (2003b) notion of ‘good practice’ in assessment in PE. I feel I have matured as a researcher and my commitment to mixed methodologies has strengthened. The insights offered through analysing the commentaries have been fascinating. I am also very conscious of my own role in the research process, in terms of my potential to unwittingly affect the research outcomes, Helliwell’s ‘insider-outsider perspective’ (2006, p.488).
On a professional level, the lessons learned though my engagement with this Doctoral thesis continue to inform my own professional practice in many ways. These include my subject knowledge for my lectures and seminars on assessment as part of the Post Graduate Certificate in Education PE and my capability as a research supervisor, for the undergraduate courses, on which I teach.
Finally, as with any research, there is much that with hindsight I might change, for example the scope of the literature review, the research design or the way the data was analysed. Whilst these changes cannot be made for the present study, the lessons learned will be used to shape and inform my future research practice.