National 5 Assignment: Changes for 2017-18

The National 5 Assignment was carried out for the first time in 2014 so at the time of the Thistle Wood School case study, in 2016-17, the Assignment was in its fourth year. However, Thistle Wood School was in its third year of implementation due to a one-year delay in adoption. The previous section compared the Assignment as intended by the SQA to what was observed in practice. It also discussed SSI contexts and factors that caused a move away from inquiry in the context of SSI. The year following the Thistle Wood School case study, the SQA (2017b) proposed changes to the National 5 Assignment that affect how it is carried out in schools. In the Thistle Wood School case study, the final focus group interviews were carried out at the end of the academic year 2016-17, with these proposed changes coming into place in the academic year 2017-18. It is no surprise therefore that the teachers were keen to talk about their understanding of these changes and how these would affect their teaching of the Assignment. At the time, the teachers understanding of the changes was limited to: “bringing in a time limit for the write up” (Nadia) and “[a requirement] to do an experiment from this session onwards” (Victor).

This section will discuss the changes to the Assignment in terms of the pedagogical approach, the SSI contexts and skills and knowledge assessed.

The curricular documentation informing this section includes the National 5 Course Specification (2017a), National 5 Assignment Assessment task (2017b) and Guidance on conditions of assessment for coursework (SQA, 2017e).

(i) Pedagogical approach

There were few changes in terms of the pedagogical approach to the Assignment. The Assignment is still recommended to take place over two stages: the research stage and the communication stage. An additional preparatory stage is eluded to but, again, not explicitly stated. The overall time limit remains the same at 8 hours but the report writing stage is limited to one hour and a half.

The SQA (2017e) recommends that teachers first advise candidates on coursework assessment before the research stage begins. They clarify this to mean advising on sources of information, relevance of materials, structure of the report, techniques of data collection and presentation, skills of analysis and evaluation, and health and safety considerations (SQA, 2017e, p. 1).

Reasonable assistance is described in a great deal of detail in comparison to earlier curriculum documentation, particularly in relation to facilitation the research stage (open inquiry pedagogical approach in Thistle Wood School). For example, the SQA (2017e) describe a teacher “drawing out or teasing out points without leading candidates” by “raising other questions that make the candidates think about the original problem, therefore giving them the opportunity to answer their own questions without supplying the actual answers” (SQA, 2017e, p. 4).

In the final stage of the Assignment, the communication stage (supervision in Thistle Wood School), the SQA (2017e) clarify the conditions under which the assessment must be taken. They extend the description of “high degree of supervision” to include covering up classroom display materials, no access to e-mail, the internet or mobile phones, and no interaction with peers. There is further clarification of the role of the teacher and “no assistance of any description” should be given (SQA, 2017e, p. 6).

(ii) SSI context

From 2017-18 students are no longer asked to “describe an application of biology, chemistry or physics and explain the effect on the environment/society” (SQA, 2016, p. 8; SQA, 2017b). In the Thistle Wood School case study this was the only aspect of the Assignment where the students engaged with SSI contexts. Thus, the removal of this requirement is likely to remove any potential to explore SSI contexts. In fact, there is some indication that students may be penalised for discussion of societal implications at the expense of purely scientific evidence: “Credit should only be given for underlying biology [chemistry or physics] not general information, e.g. historical or socio-economic” (SQA, 2017b, p. 11).

The SQA (2017b) give example aims which indicate potential topics. In biology, the aim relates to the topic of enzymes: “to investigate the effect of temperature on the activity of an enzyme” (SQA, 2017b). In chemistry, the aim relates to the topic of de-icers: “to determine the effect of different de-icers on depressing the freezing point of water” (SQA, 2017c). In physics, the topic relates to forces: “to investigate the effects of the length of crumple zones on the force experienced in a collision” (SQA, 2017d). The SQA (2017b) describe appropriate topic choices as those which correspond with National 5, have associated experimental work that can generate numerical data and will allow candidates the opportunity to access all of the available marks.

With the removal of the requirement for the topic to be related to societal implications, and the chance that by allowing students to explore SSI contexts the student may be penalised, it is unlikely that teachers will continue to treat the Assignment as an opportunity to carry out inquiry in the context of SSI at all.

(iii) Skills and knowledge

The National 5 Assignment is an assessment of skills and knowledge and this remains the case the changes implemented in 2017-18. The skills and knowledge assessed and the marks allocated to each one is shown in Table 4-7 (SQA, 2017b, pp. 10-19).

Table 4-7 Skills and knowledge assessed in the National 5 Assignment (2017-18) (SQA, 2017b, pp. 10-19).

Assessment Criteria Marks

Aim 1

Underlying biology 3

Data collection and handling 6 Graphical presentation 4 Analysis 1 Conclusion 1 Evaluation 2 Structure 2 Overall 20

Presentation and analysis of data remains the largest focus of the Assignment with nine marks or 45% of the total assessment, which is an increase compared to previous years (SQA, 2017b). This includes presentation of raw data in a table, calculations, data from secondary research, a comparison with own experimental finding and presentation of data as a graph (SQA, 2017b).

The focus on giving scientific explanations, using scientific knowledge has decreased and three marks are awarded for explaining the underlying biology. Students are no longer required to “describe an application of science and it effect on society or the environment” (SQA, 2016, p. 8). Students will also give scientific explanations when they draw conclusions, which is awarded one mark (SQA, 2017b).

The skills focus has shifted away from secondary research and towards experimental investigation. There are no marks awarded for research directly but one mark is awarded for presentation of data from secondary research (SQA, 2017b). There is no longer a requirement to evaluate sources of evidence.

In terms of presentation of findings, one source of secondary evidence must be presented in an appropriate format such as the full URL and two marks are awarded for report structure. This is the same focus as previous years.

The focus on planning, carrying out and evaluating experiments has greatly increased. Whereas prior to these changes, experimental investigations were recommended but not required, in 2017- 18 they are a requirement and awarded three marks. These marks are awarded for a description and evaluation of the method for the experiment. Students are not expected to plan the experiment but will carry it out and evaluate it. The teachers are expected to “supply instructions” for the experiment but the student must “summarise the method” (SQA, 2017b, p. 6, p. 12). Students evaluate the method by “identifying a factor which can be expected to have a significant effect on the reliability, accuracy or precision of the experimental work” and giving an “explanation of what could have been or was done to minimise the effect of the identified factor or the evidence supporting the identification of the factor” (SQA, 2017b, p. 18).

The focus on proposing an investigatable question or aim remains the same and is low. As discussed in the previous section (SSI contexts), the aims no longer explore the implications for society.

Large changes to the Assignment were proposed for 2017-18. The pedagogical approach is described in the same way, consisting of a research and communication stage. In practice the Assignment will not be carried out in the way it was previously intended or the way it was observed in Thistle Wood School. This is because the focus has shifted away from an open secondary research-based inquiry to a teacher-led structured experimental inquiry with a minimal amount of secondary research. The skills assessed continue to focus overly on analysis and presentation of data but the focus on experimental skills has increased. There will no longer be a requirement or even an opportunity for students to explore SSI contexts (SQA, 2017b).

4.2.3 Curricular documentation and inquiry in the context of SSI: