A pilot study investigating further education engineering lecturers’ readiness for the shift in Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) assessment

Abstract

The summative assessment approach of all level three Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) qualifications is changing away from a purely teacher-based, criterion-referencing internal assessment approach to a mixture of internal and external assessments including exams for core units. As this is a shift away from what teachers may be familiar with, the question of whether teachers are cognisant of how to effectively prepare students for high-stake exams arises. This paper reports on a pilot study preparing such an investigation by developing questionnaires with relevant techniques recommended in the literature and then comparing responses of two groups of teachers. One group is BTEC lecturers who may be unfamiliar with exam preparation. The other group routinely prepare further education students for General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) exams and, therefore, is familiar with exam preparation techniques and serves as a control group. One aspect of the research outcomes pertains to the refinement of the research method and suggests incorporating a formal interview. The other aspect relates to the tentative research results, which found that the responses of both groups have a high degree of agreement. However, there are some differences when it comes to detailed assessment preparation planning, student motivation and parental involvement. As the number of participants was very small, any conclusions suggested here need to be substantiated by a larger sample involving more than one college.

Keywords

Further education Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC)assignments summative assessment final exam preparing students

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson R, et al. (2016) Educating for our economic future: Second report from an independent advisory group on skills. London: Education Policy Institute.

Avis

(2009) Further education: Policy hysteria, competitiveness and performativity. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30(5): 653–662.

Bamforth

Robinson

, et al.(2007) Retention and progression of engineering students with diverse mathematical backgrounds. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications 26(4): 156–166.

Black

, et al.(2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting It into Practice, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Black

Wiliam

(2009) Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1): 5–31.

Boles

(2016) Post-16 Skills Plan, London: Williams Lea Group.

Burnell

(2017) Teaching and learning in further education: The Ofsted factor. Journal of Further and Higher Education 41(2): 227–237.

Carter

Bathmaker

A-M

(2016) Prioritising progression over proficiency: Limitations of teacher-based assessment within technician-level vocational education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 41(4): 460–474.

Coffield

, et al.(2007) How policy impacts on practice and how practice does not impact on policy. British Educational Research Journal 33(5): 723–741.

10.

Crisp

Novaković

(2009) Are all assessments equal? The comparability of demands of college-based assessments in a vocationally related qualification. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 14(1): 1–18.

11.

Crocker

(2005) Teaching for the test: How and why test preparation is appropriate. In: Phelps

(ed.) Defending Standardized Testing, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 159–174.

12.

Crocker

(2006) Preparing examinees for test taking: Guidelines for test developers and test users. In: Downing

Haladyna

(eds) Handbook of Test Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 115–128.

13.

Davey G and Fuller A (2011) Best of both worlds or falling between two stools?: The case of hybrid qualifications in England. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.6803&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 13 February 2018).

14.

Davey

Fuller

(2013) Hybrid qualifications, institutional expectations and youth transitions: A case of swimming with or against the tide. Sociological Research Online 18(1): 1–10.

15.

Gleeson

, et al.(2005) On the making and taking of professionalism in the further education workplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education 26(4): 445–460.

16.

Gleeson

, et al.(2015) The state of professional practice and policy in the English further education system: A view from below. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 20(1): 78–95.

17.

Gulek

(2003) Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory into Practice 42(1): 42–50.

18.

Hammersley M and Traianou A (2012) Ethics and Educational Research, British Educational Research Association (Online). British Educational Research Association. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethics-and-educational-research (accessed 29 December 2016).

19.

Hardy

(2010) Teacher talk: Flexible delivery and academics’ praxis in an Australian university. International Journal for Academic Development 15(2): 131–142.

20.

Institute of Apprenticeships (2017) Institute of apprenticeships – GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/institute-for-apprenticeships (accessed 22 October 2017).

21.

Johannessen LR and Kahn EA (2001) How to prepare students for high-stakes tests (and still live with your conscience!). In: Paper presented at the annual fall conference of the Illinois Association of Teachers of English Elmhurst, Illinois.

22.

Kelly

(2017) Reforming BTECs: Applied General Qualifications as a Route to Higher Education, Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.

23.

Kothari

(2004) Research Methodology, Methods & Techniques, 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age International Ltd.

24.

Lai

Waltman

(2008) Test preparation: Examining teacher perceptions and practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 27(2): 28–45.

25.

Leathwood

O’connell

(2003) ‘It’s a struggle’: The construction of the ‘new student’ in higher education. Journal of Education Policy 18(6): 597–615.

26.

MacKay D (2016) Qualification reform: The review of the BTEC Nationals. Available at: http://www.aston.ac.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=266700 (accessed 27 October 2016).

27.

Major

(2012) An evaluation of the advanced Diploma from the perspective of staff and learners. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 17(1): 67–80.

28.

Mehrens

, et al.(1998) How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 17(1): 18–22.

29.

Nilsson

(2010) Vocational education and training – An engine for economic growth and a vehicle for social inclusion? International Journal of Training and Development 14(4): 251–272.

30.

Norton SM and Park H-S (1996) Relationships between test preparation and academic performance on a Statewide High School Exit Examination. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.

31.

Orr

(2009) Performativity and professional development: The gap between policy and practice in the English further education sector. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 14(4): 479–489.

32.

Pearson (2013) Pearson BTEC Level 3 in Engineering, Specification, London: Pearson Education Ltd.

33.

Pearson (2016) BTEC Centre Guide to Standards Verification 2016–2017, London: Pearson.

34.

Pearson (2017) BTEC Nationals (2010) choose the BTEC that’s right for you. Available at: http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/BTEC-Nationals/btec_nationals_extensions_feb2017.pdf (accessed 29 May 2017).

35.

Pearson (n.d.) Quick Guide to internal assessment for BTEC Nationals. Available at: https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/about/btec/delivering-btec/btec-nationals-quick-guide-internal-assessment.pdf (accessed 1 January 2017).

36.

Pearson Education (2015) Pearson BTEC Level 3 National Extended Diplomas in Engineering. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

37.

Pearson Education Ltd (2018) BTEC nationals, Pearson qualification. Available at: http://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-nationals.html (accessed 13 February 2018).

38.

Peart

(2015) How the equality act is understood and implemented in further education. Race Equality Teaching 33(3): 24–29.

39.

Sainsbury

(2016) Report of the Independent Panel on Technical Education, London: Department for Education.

40.

Scales

(2013) Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

41.

Senior

(2015) The Rise and Demise of the 14–19 Diploma, Derby: University of Derby.

42.

Simmons

(2013) ‘Sorry to have kept you waiting so long, Mr Macfarlane’: Further education after the coalition, London: Radicaled Books.

43.

Smith R (2014) Quality assurance in FE: Inappropriate cultures and the responsibilities of leadership. Available at: https://set.et-foundation.co.uk/professionalism/resources-and-webinars/cpd-resources/cpd-resources-from-across-the-sector/quality-assurance-in-fe-inappropriate-cultures-and-the-responsibilities-of-leadership/ (accessed 17 April 2017).

44.

Springbett O (2015) Enacting professional identity: An exploration of teacher educators’ entanglement with educational technologies in FE. PhD, Lancaster: Lancaster University.

45.

Taras

(2005) Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies 53(4): 466–478.

46.

Taras

(2008) Summative and formative assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education 9(2): 172–192.

47.

Torrance

, et al.(2005) The Impact of Different Modes of Assessment on Achievement and Progress in the Learning and Skills Sector, London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

48.

Tummons

(2011) Assessing Learning in the Lifelong Learning Sector, Exeter and London: Learning Matters Ltd & Sage.

49.

Wolf

(2011) Review of Vocational Education – The Wolf Report, London: Department for Education.

50.

Wolf

(2015) Issues and Ideas. Heading for the Precipice: Can Further and Higher Education Funding Policies Be Sustained?, London: The Policy Institute at King’s College.