Dr Jonathan Wheeldon is a trustee of Skinners MAT and a governance, risk and edtech strategy advisor at various organisations including Lift Schools. This blog provides an introduction to his latest thought-provoking essay, published in full at jofftherecord.uk.
Hamlet’s existential question might seem a little excessive in the context of AI in education. But if we fail to reflect the breadth and brilliance of our human species in our assessment systems, our destiny may turn out (at best) to be the observers rather than the participants of intelligent life on earth.
The astonishing acceleration in the usage of large language models (LLMs) through many applications such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude is producing seemingly miraculous opportunities for productivity improvement and for learning. It has also triggered unforeseen risks for humanity. This makes the need to rethink educational assessment methods really quite urgent. Governments have been tinkering around the edges of the assessment challenge for many years, but without the political appetite or the confidence to get to the heart of the matter.
Meaningful improvements in education will (in my view) only occur when we integrate formative and summative assessment in more flexible and accredited ways to capture the breadth of human potential more holistically. This means taking advantage of the impressive ways that AI can support adaptive learning and assessment. This in turn can make human interactions between teachers and learners even more valuable and targeted. The approach simultaneously embraces the future whilst respecting the Socratic traditions of the past.
It also means recognising and accrediting:
- creativity and ingenuity (in their many forms)
- critical thinking (including 'prompt engineering' skills)
- self-motivation to learn (and to develop co-intelligently with AI)
- the social, collaborative and multidisciplinary aspects of problem-solving
As explained in the essay, a number of profound cultural and technological factors are ushering in a new age of oracy. So a greater focus on applied oracy skills, along with re-imagined 'viva voce' oral assessment methods, can play a big part in the improvement process. This is especially beneficial in developing interdisciplinary and cross-curricular thinking. Such changes can also help to build coping mechanisms and resilience against the destabilising forces and unintended consequences of generative AI and social media.
We must be pragmatic. In the change-averse sector of education, this kind of reform is no small undertaking. It requires a fundamental rethink of how resources are allocated. Teachers are learners too and we must invest in their continuing professional development, especially in response to the changing landscape of learning. If we get this right it should make teaching a more rewarding and sustainable career choice.
The Rethinking Assessment movement has been leading the charge for many years. Its members have many excellent propositions. One of my favourites is the flexibility to assess learners when they are ready, rather than when it suits the system. This way we can avoid the disgrace of The Forgotten Third, and get a much higher percentage of youngsters to acceptable standards of literacy, oracy and applied numeracy.
Reform comes with risks, and consensus is not easy to achieve. There are ideological arguments about the content of the curriculum, both within the teaching profession and amongst the much wider population of parents. But if we can establish consensus about getting assessment right, then the competing priorities of the overloaded curriculum (which will always struggle to deliver everything that is demanded of it) become much less problematic. Knowledge gaps will always exist, but at least we will have set children up with stronger foundations to adapt, to prioritise and to thrive through lifelong learning.
Right now, younger generations are understandably losing focus and confidence in finding pathways to a happy and fulfilled life. If our education system can help them to take pride in their skills, and to discover sustainable career nutrients that align with their strengths and personalities, there is hope.
My essay is in five parts and takes around 15-20 minutes to propose why this topic is so huge – not just for education but for the future of humanity. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic, but sometimes it is good to stop and reflect deeply about what is really going on in the world, and not just 'go with the flow'.
- Artificial intelligence or authentic stupidity?
- Hope versus fear – AI Fight Club
- The human response – a new age of oracy
- Holistic oral assessment – the ‘authentic human’ solution
- The future of authorship, authority and the integrity of human knowledge
To sum up, my message to those currently working on the Curriculum and Assessment Review: “less testing for ignorance, more focus on human potential please.”
