Following the recent review of the Victorian Certificate of Education the mathematics school-based Common Assessment Task (CAT) has been removed due to perceived problems with the authentication of students' work & excessive student and teacher workloads. The CAT has been replaced with more a flexible assessment format to address these concerns, however, the tasks are to be smaller in scope and undertaken mainly during school hours.

In February 1997, the Victorian State Government initiated a review of the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE). The terms of reference of the Committee of Review on the Victorian Certificate of Education was to give priority to the need to revise the assessment regime to ensure that it was as fair and equitable as possible for all students and to relieve undue pressure associated with the stress and workload for both students and teachers.

In its report Enhancing Their Futures, published in December 1997, the Committee recommended that school based extended common assessment tasks (or CATs as they had become popularly known) and the satisfactory completion of work requirements, be replaced by school assessed coursework, comprising a limited number of smaller tasks (which have become popularly known as SACs) and achievement of a set of specific learning outcomes.

This recommendation was incorporated in the re-accreditation of all but a very few VCE studies, and a revised VCE Mathematics study with school assessed coursework was accredited in 1998. The revised VCE Mathematics Study Design (Board of Studies, 1999a) was published at the beginning of 1999, for the first year of implementation in 2000. The changes made to school based assessment in VCE studies are intended to address issues of student workload, teacher workload and real and perceived concerns about the authenticity of student work. The two centrally set three hour mathematics examinations remained unchanged.

In the original VCE, fully implemented in 1992, there were two distinct school-based common assessment tasks, a challenging problem and an investigative project which included in their aims the development of students' writing, research & communication skills, areas too often neglected in mathematics classrooms (Forgasz, Tobias & Jones, 1997). Following the first round of modifications to the VCE in 1993, only one of the distinct school-based CATs continued in each of the three VCE Unit 3 and 4 Mathematics courses. For this remaining school-based assessment, the Board of Studies setting panels developed centrally set investigative project for Further Mathematics and Mathematical Methods Unit 3, and a problem solving task in Specialist Mathematics Unit 4. New tasks, each with several different starting points were developed on an annual basis (for Mathematical Methods and Specialist Mathematics there was also an associated test component). These tasks were undertaken over an extended period of time under the supervision of the class teacher and assessed by teachers in accordance with Board criteria and advice, also published on an annual basis. These assessments were subject to external review by the Board. Students had substantial out of class opportunity to work on these extended CAT tasks both in class and out of class.

In the revised VCE Mathematics study, teachers set and assess a limited number of smaller tasks (application tasks, analysis tasks and tests) for school assessed coursework in accordance with the requirements of the study design. These tasks are devised by the teachers using advice provided in various Board publications and support resources, including the VCE Mathematics Assessment Guide (Board of Studies, 1999b, 2000a). They are each undertaken over a short time frame, with work done students mainly in class under teacher supervision. These assessments are not subject to external review by the Board, but the aggregate score for coursework assessment will be statistically moderated against examinations (Board of Studies 1999c).

During 2000, the Board conducted a survey that gave teachers the opportunity to comment on issues related to implementation of coursework assessment such as content, outcomes and task design, in Unit 3 of the first year of the revised VCE studies in English, History, Mathematics and Science. A report on this survey has been published in Supplement 1 to the November 2000 edition of the VCE Bulletin (Board of Studies, 2000b).

The research reported on in the current article provides more detailed data on senior mathematics teachers' perceptions for a range of specific elements of implementation of school assessed coursework. As concerns with high workload and authentication of student work were key issues for consideration in the development of the revised school-based assessment structure, teachers' experiences with respect to these issues in the first year of implementation were surveyed. As teachers now had to choose one type of task, (the analysis task) from a range of flexibly prescribed options, the research also attempted to quantify the broad categories of tasks set, exploring any change in emphasis on investigative, problem solving and modelling work across the three Unit 3 mathematical courses. The impact on the junior mathematics curriculum in terms of broad teaching practice and the use of different technologies was also investigated.

This research is, in part, a follow up of a 1997 survey sent to schools during the time when public pressure was mounting for a return to an even greater emphasis on externally set and timed examinations. This pressure for change was, in part, driven by the concerns of the university professoriate (Horwood, 1998). Horwood (1999) believes that while the concerns of university mathematicians were genuine, their public condemnation of the earlier VCE curriculum provided the opportunity to frustrate comprehensive reforms of the senior curriculum. At the same time, some teachers argued that the CAT regime was overly prescriptive and restrictive, and that a more flexible structure with greater teacher responsibility for devising tasks to be used in school based assessment be considered.

In 1997 an investigation of mathematics teachers' views on the VCE (n=490 teachers) found widespread support for the greater emphasis on problem solving and project based studies (83%) and this was apparent across all school sectors and regions (Rowley, Brew & Leder 1997; Brew, Leder & Rowley, 1999). These innovations were reported by 68% of teachers to have led to an enhanced focus on mathematical communication and justification of work. With respect to school sector, greatest support was from teachers in the catholic sector (90%), than teachers from within the government sector (86%), and teachers from the independent sector gave a slightly reduced endorsement (77%) (Brew, Leder & Rowley, 1998).

Half of the teachers also wished they could include more project work and problem solving in their junior classes but the time required for marking prevented them from doing so. Evidence of a broadening of the junior mathematics curriculum as a consequence of the VCE school-based assessment format was also identified by Stacey and McCrae (1998) and Clarke and Stephens (1996).

Despite the high level of pedagogical support for the extended task CAT from teachers generally, they expressed far much concern with the ultimate assessment process of this CAT than the traditional examinations (Rowley, Brew & Leder 1997). Furthermore, while the original VCE was aimed to draw together a diversity of courses under the one certificate, the 1997 survey found evidence to suggest that the pre-VCE mathematics curriculum may well have catered better for those students who traditionally would be labeled lower achievers academically (Brew, Rowley & Leder, 1999). Combined with strong grievances about excessive workloads, the revised VCE 2000 with its coursework structure for school based assessment attempts to reach a new balance between pedagogical ideals, the high stakes nature of the VCE, and other competing interests and concerns of key stakeholders.

Relevant survey items were developed from consultation with the Victorian Board of Studies, university mathematics and education faculty academics, and experienced mathematics teachers from the researchers school networks. Some of the questions asked in the 1997 survey were also included to allow for a comparison across the three year period between the two surveys. The survey consisted of 85 questions, although only 35 questions were to be answered by all teachers. The remaining questions were divided into subsections seeking teachers' perceptions across level and studies taught in 2000. A standard five-point Likert scale was adopted for most questions ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." In some cases a "yes/no" response was requested. Space was also provided for further comments. Apart from school details, biographical information was requested from teachers including time teaching, qualifications, and subjects taught to help provide some context for teachers' views.

In July 2000, surveys were mailed to a stratified random sample of secondary schools within the three school sectors and nine school regions and all VCE adult providers. In early September, those schools that had not already responded were sent a reminder letter. For a breakdown of response rate by sector see Table 1. In total, 316 teachers responded from 121 schools or TAFE colleges. All respondents taught year 11 or 12 mathematics, 75% also taught mathematics in years 7-10, 27% were VCE mathematics coordinators and 60% were male. In terms of the studies taught, 37% were Further Mathematics teachers, 48% Mathematical Methods teachers and 27% Specialist Mathematics teachers. Just 7% taught the new Units 1&2 Foundation Mathematics. Table 2 provides a further breakdown of the sample by region and school details.

The predominant issues in the revision of the VCE assessment mechanisms were student and teacher workloads, and the authentication of student work. The following results are preliminary findings for each of these two concerns. Relevant results from the 1997 survey are used for comparative purposes.

There were four questions included in the survey that related to teacher workload and one question relating to student workload. With respect to their VCE allotment, 43% of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that their workload was still too high and interfered with effective teaching (Figure 1). While this percentage is substantial, when compared with a comparable question in the 1997 survey, it would appear that a small level of concern about high workloads has been reduced over the three-year period. (t_.001[777] = 3.35, Eta² =0.02). This may, or may not be attributable to the revised assessment structure.

In 1997, teachers from the Independent school sector expressed the highest level of concern with heavy workloads. However the 2000 survey results showed no significant difference across school sectors. The shift in response by the Independent school teachers suggests that they are less concerned with excessive workloads in 2000 (Figure 2).

In an attempt to distinguish between workload based on school allotments and the workload associated with assessment changes set by the Board of Studies, a slightly different question was also asked in the 2000 survey - "My current VCE commitments related to curriculum requirements does not allow me to teach as effectively as I am capable of doing". To this question a slightly higher percentage (52% versus 43%) of teachers responded affirmatively, suggesting that the assessment changes have, at least in the first year of implementation, raised many teachers' workloads. However, only 16% of teachers agreed that the assessment changes were likely to reduce their workload pressures while 34% of teachers agreed that, following the familiarisation with the assessment changes, their workload pressures would be reduced. It would seem that any school based assessment structure that is associated with high stakes assessment makes significant demands on the professional responsibilities of teachers.

Teachers were asked whether the changes to the VCE school-based assessment were likely to increase, or had increased the workload of their students. Although more than half (56%) of the teachers surveyed felt that there has been no increase in student workloads, 28% felt that there has been, or is likely to be, an increase in student workload. These results did not vary significantly for school sector, school size, school region or gender, subject taught, or experience level of teachers. The survey data is therefore unable to provide any insight into the differing profile of this group of teachers who reported an increase in students' workload.

Four questions were included to explore the issue of authentication associated with school based assessment. As discussed in the introduction, the recommendations of the VCE Review were motivated both by real and perceived concerns about the authenticity of student work in the school-based extended CATs. The results confirm significant disparity between what might be called real problems (as indicated by teachers' experiences at their own school), and perceived problems (as indicated by teacher's perceptions of what happens 'elsewhere' in other schools).

In Figure 3, serious concern with authentication was clearly experienced as a problem by many teachers within their own schools (47%). When compared though to their perceptions of what occurs in other schools (77%), the recommendations of the Committee of Review, related to authentication, were probably largely driven by a perceived rather than actual concern. Of course, general community perceptions and the perception of other stakeholders have also been important.

Of particular note was a gender-related difference between the perceptions of teachers with respect to prior concerns with authentication at their school (Figure 4). The difference is particularly significant with a greater concern expressed by male teachers (50%) compared to female teachers (29%)(p = 0.001, eta² = 0.05). This result was not evident for the similar question relating to prior concerns about authentication of student work at other schools.

Figure 4: Prior to 2000, I had serious concerns about authentication at my school by gender

School size also contributed to the differences in the responses of the teachers to authentication issues. Small schools were less likely to agree they had experienced concern with authentication of student work in their own schools (small 26%, medium 41%; large 49%; p<0.05).

Most teachers (67%) agreed that the changes to the VCE school assessed tasks had led to authentication becoming a less significant issue. A comparable though slightly smaller percentage of teachers also responded that the structure of school assessed coursework in the revised VCE had addressed the inequity issues with regard to student access to undue assistance.

Teachers of the three VCE mathematical studies were each asked separately whether they perceived the revised VCE would lead to an improvement in their students' mathematical understanding. How teachers interpreted this question would vary of course with their set of pedagogical beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics in particular what constitutes 'understanding' and how this may be demonstrated. However, in the context of VCE mathematics courses, the outcomes and associated key knowledge and key skills may be considered to provide, to some degree, a common reference in this regard. These preliminary findings show that teachers are very split across all three studies on what the perceived impact of the revised VCE is having, or will have, on students' mathematical learning (Figure 5).

An outline of the revised school-based assessment structure is provided below in Table 3 but see Board of Studies (2000a) for further details.

To provide some insight into the analysis type tasks chosen by teachers, a sample of the data has been provided (Table 4 & 5). It is important to keep in mind that the scope of the analysis tasks was to be in the range of 600-800 words or about 4-8 pages, including calculations, tables, graphs and diagrams. Each task was also to be completed in a period of 160-200 minutes over one week, with almost all work done in class under the supervision of their teacher. A limited amount of homework was to be allowed to allow students to work on the presentation of material.

The results in Table 4 for task 1 show that all types of tasks were used though some different favouring is apparent across the three studies. Option one was the least favoured for Further Mathematics, the second and third options were favoured for Mathematical Methods and option 1 was the most favoured for Specialist Mathematics. In Table 5 for task 2, the third and fourth options increase in prevalence. These options are those that would be likely to be considered by many teachers as most directly of assistance for examination review/preparation

Senior secondary school teachers, who have been teaching longer than ten years, have been at the coal face of implementing major reform packages and on-going alternations throughout this decade in the Victorian Certificate of Education. It is perhaps not a surprise to find that workload pressures remain high on their agenda as being problematic. It would seem that any school based assessment structure that is associated with high stakes assessment makes significant demands on the professional responsibilities of teachers. Having comparable 1997 data to compare with, it would appear that some level of angst has been removed, if only a little. However, it is worth noting that over the three year period, 1997-2000, half of the State school VCE mathematics teachers (those who teach the majority of VCE students), have maintained that their high workload is interfering with effective teaching practice. This situation must have ramifications for students' learning.

High student workload concerns would appear to be now much less of an issue, though surprisingly, a substantial number of teachers (28%) said workloads for VCE students had increased. Attempts to try and identify what factors might be related to account for this outcome do not appear to have been measured by the survey items. Further investigation of the data will continue to explore this outcome.

The second issue the Committee of Review aimed to address was authentication of student work. By having students complete their assessable school-based coursework mainly in class, this does appear to have reduced quite substantially the concerns that teachers had with the original longer tasks that were designed to be done over a longer time frame. One of the findings with respect to authentication is that male teachers generally had greater concerns than women teachers. This suggests that what might be called "cheating by one" might be considered "collaborative" by another. A preliminary exploration of data relating to the junior mathematics curriculum (not reported in the findings of this paper) do show that female teachers use group work more frequently than male teachers. This result would seem to be consistent with the gender-related finding pertaining to authentication concerns. This raises an epistemological issue - how mathematics is viewed as a subject. Is the learning of mathematics something to be done essentially alone, or learnt together where there is the opportunity to increase one's ability to use the mathematical register, the language of mathematics. The whole notion of what is considered authentic work needs on-going debate and discussion.

This raises the question as to what impact the revised assessment structure has had on the quality of the students' mathematical learning. Survey research is not particularly suited to this type of question which requires more indepth investigation. Hence the level of meaning one can attach to the answers received must be viewed with some caution and be viewed only as a possible guideline for more indepth research. With this in mind the results suggest that one third of teachers have not passed judgment as yet on the impact of the revised curriculum on students learning outcomes. For those who have, they are split reasonably equally. Whether this split reflects the teachers' pedagogical perspective on the learning of mathematics or something more school context specific will be further investigated in the data.

With regard to the types of analysis tasks chosen by teachers it is clear they have not restricted themselves to those that would be likely to be considered as most directly of assistance for examination review/preparation. Whether this will continue over the coming years will be an important issue to focus on. The data from this study does provide a baseline for future research.

We would like to thank the individual teachers who responded to the survey. Without your support this type of research could not proceed. The Board of Studies also provided the stratified random sample of schools.