'Comparisons Are Odorous' (III.v): Much Ado about Nothing? Keith Davidson Compares Notes on Two Recent Studies of Comparability between Subjects, Incuding English at A Level

By Davidson, Keith | English Drama Media, October 2008 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

'Comparisons Are Odorous' (III.v): Much Ado about Nothing? Keith Davidson Compares Notes on Two Recent Studies of Comparability between Subjects, Incuding English at A Level


Davidson, Keith, English Drama Media


2008 saw two sets of inter-subject comparability studies: different aims and approaches; different conclusions. The QCA studies were prompted by notions of the 'soft subjects'--the usual suspects; the University of Durham research by notions of the 'harder' STEM subjects--science, technology, engineering and mathematics. All things it seems are not equal.

The QCA studies

The QCA report (Inter-subject comparability studies, QCA, February 2008) discusses the relative merits of the two main approaches that can be adopted:

* qualitative: small-scale reviews based on comparative judgements

* quantitative: large-scale statistical analyses

From to time, concerns are raised about whether the standards required
to achieve success in GCSE and GCE A Levels are the same across
different subjects. The basis of such concerns varies. At their
simplest, they derive from the numbers of candidates succeeding in
the different subjects ...

There are more sophisticated approaches to the use of numbers, but
these still depend on a purely statistical analysis, using measures of
either prior or concurrent attainment to make the comparison.
QCA/08/3568

Typically both approaches are used, the one to inform the other. In opting for small-scale 'expert' reviews the QCA imposed inevitable constraints on the scope of the studies.

Subject experts, with a background in assessment, were employed as
reviewers to analyse assessment materials and candidate work across
two or more cognate subjects, to draw comparisons and highlight
differences in demand ... recruited through a combination of
advertisement and recommendation ... who had experience of teaching
more than one subject, and of teaching at least one subject at A
level. Knowledge of the examination system was an advantage, but
not essential ... each participant had a main subject specialism,
but was able to compare that subject with others in the study. To
avoid bias, the aim was to have the main subjects evenly
represented across the teams, although this was not achieved for
studies 2a and 2b. Lead consultants were also appointed. Their role
was to assist in the development of the various instruments used in
the studies, to advise consultants on subject-specific matters and
lead subject-specific discussions at meetings, and to prepare the
subject-specific parts of the report.

There were two main components of this work on examinations:

* an analysis of specification materials and an evaluation of the
demands of each subject for each qualification

* a comparison of the work of candidates within each subject
QCA/08/3568

The first constraint, 'cognate' subjects, in our case A Level English literature, history and media studies (Study 2b), evidently assumed to be much the same sort of thing, though history is also paired with geography (Study 1a), so seemingly not the same sort of thing. There may be some sense in the notion of 'cognate subjects', most obviously in the languages, not reviewed in this exercise, though if we were to pair say Spanish and Mandarin we might have to think again. Similarly, if less so, in the sciences, biology, chemistry and physics (Study 1b), though biology was also paired with psychology and sociology (Study 2a), so perhaps not the same sort of thing as the physical sciences. But if the object of the exercise is to seek 'differences in demand', then the notion of 'cognate' subjects is a nonsense to start with.

And it altogether misses the point. What people want to know are not marginal differences within subject groupings, but any significant differences across subject groupings: are mathematics and physics necessarily harder than other subjects; is it evidently easier to get 'good' grades in some subjects--are they really 'soft' options?

Finding 'that overall there was no clear evidence of significant differences in demand between the three subjects in our group doesn't answer that one; they might all be 'soft subjects'.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

'Comparisons Are Odorous' (III.v): Much Ado about Nothing? Keith Davidson Compares Notes on Two Recent Studies of Comparability between Subjects, Incuding English at A Level
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?