Correspondence:
Susan Martin
S.Martin@bath.ac.uk
01225 826904

This is a draft paper and should not be quoted or cited without the express permission of one of the authors.

Introduction

This paper arises from a project the principal aim of which was to explore the potential of GCSE coursework to develop skills associated with critical thinking, creativity and independent learning (CCI). The paper briefly outlines the background to and overview of the project with the main research questions and foci and then sets out the main findings to date in relation to the research question focusing on assessment.

A The Research Project

Over the past fifteen years, the original arguments for coursework as a part of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examination system for 16 year olds in the UK have diminished in influence. Among other things, this trend appears to stem, firstly, from an increasing emphasis on accountability in the education system, with GCSE results now used as a measure of school, department and teacher performance as well as pupil performance, and secondly, from perceptions of rigour and fairness in representing the standards which should be engendered by the national examinations at the end of compulsory schooling.

At the inception of the GCSE, coursework was included as a central component of the examination which would raise the validity of the assessment process and enhance the learning of students. A coursework element to the qualification, it was argued, would promote and give value to less tangible transferable skills such as critical thinking, creativity and independent learning. The advantages of such approaches were thought to include:

• providing a useful vehicle for communication skills;
• giving pupils credit for initiating tasks and assuming responsibility for their own work;
• increasing the 'reliability' of the assessment by providing wider evidence of pupils' achievement;
• developing an understanding of the part that school subjects play in the everyday world and their relevance to pupils' own lives.

(SEC, 1985)

The aim of this research study was to examine the potential of GCSE coursework to develop in 16 year old pupils in mainstream schools the skills associated with critical thinking, creativity and independent learning. The research began by exploring the nature of the three attributes, and in addition, it probed the influence of the assessment of coursework on this type of learning. The study used a qualitative approach to investigate teachers', parents' and students' conceptions of the skills of critical thinking, creativity and independent learning and to explore the values, organisation and practice related to GCSE coursework which might develop such qualities in young people. Within six case study schools, University researchers worked with teacher researchers in English and geography departments to appraise past and current practice in GCSE coursework, to examine its potential to contribute to critical thinking, creativity and independent learning and to set out any extending and limiting factors of assessment.

The six case study schools were identified through the working relationships already established between the University and local schools in the five contiguous counties. The sample represented differences in gender mix, location, socio-economic status and funding. The teacher representatives in each school were drawn equally from geography and English backgrounds and all were keen to be involved in the research. Data collecting techniques comprised focussed group meetings, semi-structured interviews and a scrutiny of coursework in English and geography

The first task was to develop a common understanding of the three constructs, critical thinking, creativity and independent learning. Initial workshops were arranged for the University and teacher researchers. These used synopses of current papers in the field, brainstorming techniques and priority exercises to explore perceptions and identifiers of the three constructs. From the workshops semi-structured interview schedules were constructed by the University researchers and returned to the teacher researchers for validation and comment. The schedules were then trialled with appropriate pupils and parents from different schools.

In-depth interviews were carried out between June 1999 and June 2000. A systematic sample was obtained with respondents from particular categories identified by the teacher researchers as follows:

To what extent are the original qualities attributed to coursework achieved in current practice?

It is claimed that coursework offers a set of benefits for the learner (see above). A scrutiny and analysis of current practice investigated the extent to which coursework:

• gives students credit for initiating tasks and assuming responsibility for their own work;
• supports and develops creativity and critical thinking;
• increases the reliability of the assessment by providing wider evidence of students' achievement.

Ways in which coursework is introduced, organised and supported at school, departmental and individual teacher level and by parents at home was also captured. Examples of specific strategies for fostering skills of independent learning, critical thinking and creativity were also explored as was the value attributed to coursework by the school, teachers, students and parents both in terms of its contribution to assessment and to the learning process. Where coursework is seen to be limited, reasons for this will were explored.

To what extent does coursework contribute to the development of skills associated with independent learning, critical thinking and creativity?

Recent research into perceptions of the GCSE (Bishop et al, 1997a; Winter et al, 1997) indicates that the vast majority of GCSE students find coursework motivating. It is the one form of work in the students' experience which allows them some degree of freedom in their approach to learning. Students have more control over their learning in coursework and it provides an opportunity for those pupils with different learning styles to demonstrate their understanding; it also can provide teachers with opportunities to use their own favoured approaches (Goulding, 1995). Students' conceptions of how they learn from coursework were explored. Individual approaches to the following aspects of coursework were also be investigated:

• how topics are selected and how the work is planned;
• which resources are used and from whom help is sought;
• how students like to learn and what strategies they use to evaluate their work.

Students' understanding of their own organisation and approaches to learning from coursework were probed (Riding and Read, 1996) in order to identify outcomes of the high level skills aspired to by the Pacific Rim countries. Issues of gender, level of attainment and home and cultural background were also considered (Bishop et al, 1997b).

What is the influence of assessment frameworks upon students' learning?

The research investigated how teachers use the assessment framework in their teaching in relation to coursework and how the students perceive the framework and how it influences the way they undertake their coursework. Issues concerned with learning and assessment explored included: the use of student feedback; ownership of work and learning; teacher diagnosis of learning difficulties and the suitability of coursework to students' learning styles. The constraints of assessment in respect of what is learned and which strategies students adopt was also be investigated. For example:

• what are the learning outcomes expected from coursework?
• to what extent do these models match SEAC 'ideals'?
• what emphasis is given to coursework in comparison with other forms of teaching and learning?

One of the purposes of incorporating coursework into the GCSE was to promote and give value to the 'softer' less tangible transferable skills such as critical thinking, creativity and independent learning. It is clear from this research that such skills are valued and recognised by teachers, parents and students and that they think that coursework has an important role in giving students an opportunity to develop and demonstrate them. It is also evident that these skills have a role in producing good quality coursework. However, evidence from all three groups clearly indicates that such process skills are of secondary importance to the goal of achieving a GCSE grade for coursework. Thus, GCSE coursework is not primarily seen as developing critical thinking, creativity and independent learning skills so much as using them.

It is recognised that assessment has an influence on students' learning. This link or influence was a particular aim of the research and the remainder of the paper focuses on three themes emerging from the interviews in relation to this. These are 'playing the game', 'giving feedback to students' and 'locus of control'.

Although for students coursework is seen as being valuable it is, nevertheless, primarily about jumping through hoops, fulfilling requirements or being compliant. Typically the students focus on the requirements for coursework with the grade as the ultimate end point towards which they work. Skills such as critical thinking, creativity and independent learning are not a specific focus for them in their coursework and they have a tendency to 'play safe' rather than go for opportunities to extend their thinking. For most students, doing coursework is seen to be a way of making a contribution to their final GCSE grade(s). Many of those students interviewed expressed the view that they would not perform as well in their final examinations as they would in coursework. Thus coursework is perceived as a different and cumulative way of gaining marks, i.e. 'getting marks in the bank'.

The teachers' view of coursework has similarities. Although teachers, too, are concerned about helping students to get 'play the game', the pressure from accountability through league tables further leads to the promotion of the importance of maximising students' grades. Increasingly such high stakes factors influence the practice of completing coursework to the extent where the development of critical thinking, creativity and independent learning is of a second order and importance. In other words the teachers' focus is heavily weighted towards the product of coursework rather than the process of completing it. One possible consequence of this is that students' opportunities for taking and encouragement to take risks is limited. A further dimension here is that teachers don't readily recognise their role in the constraining influence of assessment on their teaching and facilitation of the completion of coursework.

Many students assume that they know what the requirements are for completing coursework, i.e. what it is that the teacher wants them to do. Some students realise this and invest their time in enhancing their learning, focusing on developing their skills. Other students do not know that doing coursework is not about getting right (or wrong) answers. In other words, while students may believe they are working towards 'the right answer' the teacher is in fact looking for quality through a well argued stance rather than the 'right' stance. This is likely to affect students' understanding not only of how to about their coursework but also in terms of improving it.

Teachers, however, believe they are clear in terms of their expectations for completing coursework and communicating this to their students. This is based on their own perspective, on materials used (such as assessment criteria), and on lesson observations. This is both in relation to the process of doing coursework and the desired outcomes. However, there is less certainty about the extent to which students (as a result of teachers telling them) know how to do well in coursework. Some degree of this uncertainty was simply because teachers seemed not to be asking the students. Some students respond appropriately to feedback while others do not set appropriate targets for improving their work (suggesting they do not know how to do well).

Thus, teachers are clear what 'better' looks like or means. Teacher support and feedback is provided in different ways e.g. advice, 'up to them', 1-1 support, modelling. Teachers are aware of typical weaknesses in students' coursework (Geography e.g. using inappropriate research methods, not aware of limitations of their work, not linking results with theory) but feedback tends to focus on advice (e.g. 'putting things in own words', 'analyse what you've found out') rather than these specific problems. Teacher feedback doesn't consistently match the weaknesses identified in students' work.

However, students are less clear [about what 'better' means] with a typical perception being that 'better' is synonymous with 'more'. This is particularly so for lower ability students who aim in the dark thinking that they need to do more of the same, improve spelling etc. This may be an interpretation of actual feedback e.g. 'you need to expand on this', 'more detail needed' or this can come from looking at coursework which has been graded highly and is, inevitably, longer. Additionally, floundering students were seen to be disadvantaged by complex terms with many students having to deconstruct teachers' codes and command words. Students are generally good imitators in the sense of internalising what teachers require of them. A parental concern was that students don't get told about what to leave out. Thus, teacher feedback is not appropriately formative. There could be more of a closing of the loop with respect to feedback in that it appears that it would be (more) beneficial to students if they were involved more, for example, in target setting and discussing strategies for improvement.

Students would be helped by teachers modelling their expectations: of doing coursework, of examples of good coursework and poor coursework (i.e. meeting criteria and not meeting criteria) and of involving students in such discussions. Although modelling is not used much for coursework it is seen (by some teachers) as a major tool for effective teaching.

Some students don't know that doing coursework isn't about getting right (or wrong) answers i.e. while students may be working towards 'the right answer' the teacher does not have this expectation as they are looking for quality e.g. a well argued stance rather than the right stance. This is likely to affect students' understanding not only of how to about their coursework but also in terms of improving it. Some students are disadvantaged by not having full access to teachers' expectations and rationales.

The data shows that the locus of control for completing coursework lies largely with teachers with the exception of high ability students: high ability students typically achieve their potential, middle ability students do not achieve their potential and low ability students do not achieve their potential but achieve more than they would without the support they receive.

Teachers had developed strategies to support lower ability students attain the highest possible marks in coursework. Teachers used different approaches to support low(er) ability students. For example, some teachers were careful in their choice of which work to select and others saw this choice as less significant than the choice of approach for the task, e.g. writing psychologist's report on character, reviewing children's books and, thus, not in any structure as such by the teacher in the carrying out of the task. One strategy used by teachers in supporting and framing coursework was to hold a class discussion so that relevant arguments and theories can be shared. This could be powerful in a mixed ability group.

Issues of enabling strategies, frameworks and structuring were important for both geography and English teachers. Good teaching in coursework was seen as providing a supportive structure while allowing the pupils to make their own decisions regarding process and content. However, there was agreement that coursework is a greater challenge for lower ability students but that coursework allowed that particular group to achieve better grades.

Teachers thought that a tension did exist between the degree of teacher support that students need to maximise their marks and the flexibility to develop their own ideas more fully and wondered if students also felt this tension.

Many students are supported by teachers breaking things down for them. However, in teacher interviews teachers did not say that they told the students what they were doing which raises a question of whether this limits the 'transfer fee', i.e. the extent to which the students learn from teacher support. One teacher recognised the importance to their own progress of knowing what expected of them but didn't (appear to) see the parallel with the importance of students knowing:

Teachers generally think that making choices for students is necessary (for example for purposes of differentiation, using what stock is available). In the case of low(er) ability students there was a consensus that structuring was necessary to maximise marks attained (perhaps more so for geography than for English). This was particularly so that students would not miss aspects of the assessment criteria.

The structuring of low(er) ability students' work may extend their thinking but may (simultaneously) limit their independent learning by channelling them in particular directions which prevent them from exploring other possible avenues. That is, in some cases the teachers explicitly limit the degree of creativity to maximise the 'average' opportunity for pupils to do well. However, it was recognised that by structuring coursework for low(er) ability students they may be 'debarred' from attaining their potential but that this might not be possible within the confines of (the particular) coursework, and so the actual mark would be greater than that attained without structure. Teachers weren't sure whether this ceiling of attainment was a reality. Pupils were seen as having autonomy in completing coursework with flexibility and options available in the process.

Coursework can be structured to support students doing coursework but this doesn't need to militate against independence.

There was a consensus that teachers are the best judge of how to structure students' approaches to coursework as they know the assessment criteria and (associated) pitfalls. Some higher ability students abandon suggested structures and do their own thing. Structuring by teachers is seen as a response to the current coursework climate rather than the ideal environment for completing coursework. There was a tendency to agree that low(er) ability students see the locus of control as external (and this is an obstacle to developing critical thinking, creativity and independent learning) in contrast to high(er) ability students who see the locus of control as internal.

Conclusion

Although the students, parents and teachers saw coursework as an appropriate vehicle for utilising and developing transferable skills the research showed that it did not achieve its potential for realising this. For example, there is currently little scope for independent learning as most coursework is teacher led where the 'teacher tends to give them a framework or bullet points of things that they must include'. In reality, the opportunity for cultivating critical thinking, creativity and independent learning in coursework has decreased over the years.

Our study suggests that it is appropriate to consider redressing the balance so that greater attention is given to the process of coursework not only as an end in itself but also in enhancing the product.

Focusing on the theme of assessment the following recommendations are those we would support if skills of CCI are to be developed and for a greater match between the value that is attributed to them outside the current assessment system.

It is our belief, supported by findings from the project, that it is necessary and vital that such skills be given appropriate value and (thus) emphasis in the curriculum (learning process) and hence in the assessment system. It is not the case that there is currently no opportunity or room for such an emphasis (indeed it seems clear that they are already valued in some measure) nor that it would be appropriate, were it deemed necessary to make further room, for there to be an add-on approach to including these skills in the curriculum. The value of the skills of critical thinking, creativity and independent learning must be maintained through each stage of inclusion in an education system: a bolt-on, subject by subject approach in which the assessment does not recognise these will be virtually ineffective. Thus, emphasis should be placed on the development of skills associated with CCI; a more whole-school, cross curricular approach is required, perhaps akin to or embodying a key skills approach.

Bishop, K. N., Bullock, K., Martin, S. and Thompson, J. J. (1997a) Users' Perceptions of the GCSE, (Joint Council for the GCSE).

Bishop, K. N., Bullock, K., Martin, S. and Thompson, J. J. (1997b) Students' perceptions of coursework in the GCSE: the effects of gender and levels of attainment. Educational Studies, 23 (2) pp. 295-310.

Entwistle, N. (1981) Styles of Learning and Teaching, London, John Wiley.

Goulding, M. (1995) GCSE coursework in Mathematics: teachers' perspectives and the performance of girls, Evaluation and Research in Education 9(3) pp. 111-119.

Gow, L. and kember, D. (1993) Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, pp. 20-33.

James, M. and Gipps, C. (1998) Broadening the basis of assessment to prevent the narrowing of learning, The Curriculum Journal 9(3), pp. 285-297.

Riding, R. J. and Read, G. (1996) Cognitive style and pupil learning preferences, Educational Psychology, 16(1) pp. 81-106.

SEC (1985) Working Paper 2: Coursework assessment in GCSE, London: SEC

Winter, J., Brown, L. and Sutherland, R. (1997) Curriculum Materials to Support the Courses Bridging the Gap Between GCSE and A Level Mathematics, Report carried out for SCAA, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol.