Research and analysis

Responding to Criticisms of the CASLO Approach (Report B): Perceived benefits of the CASLO approach

Published 18 November 2024

Applies to England

Although our principal focus related to criticisms of the CASLO approach, we wanted to begin by understanding the reasons why awarding organisations chose to adopt the CASLO approach, that is, why they believed it to be beneficial. In this section, we present AO views about the benefits of the CASLO approach and their main stated reasons for adopting this approach for their exemplar qualifications. The starting point for most AOs in thinking about the design of their exemplar qualifications seemed to be the needs of:

• students with various educational and occupational backgrounds and interests, starting points, constraints and commitments, including students disengaged from education
• other users of these qualifications, including employers, professional bodies and higher education institutions, for qualifications that are relevant in their specific contexts and valid or reliable in certifying the relevant competence

For the AOs, the key mechanisms for meeting those requirements revolved around the availability of flexibility and transparency in qualification delivery, design and assessment to create opportunities for learning and ensure a sense of relevance for students, which, together with adopting the mastery approach, were deemed to ensure the overall validity of qualification results. The CASLO approach was thought to embody these mechanisms and was thus seen as appropriate for their qualifications.

In addition to anticipated benefits, some awarding organisations also mentioned other reasons for adopting the CASLO approach, including pressure from employers, their sector or regulatory bodies, or historical reasons. In the sections that follow, we focus primarily on the anticipated benefits, noting other reasons at the end.

Flexibility

All AOs in our sample saw flexibility facilitated by the CASLO approach, in delivery, design and through contextualisation, as one of its key benefits and a key reason why they adopted this approach in their exemplar qualifications. Flexible delivery and contextualisation enabled scope to tailor teaching and assessment within centres to meet the needs of students. Flexibilities in the design included unitisation and the possibility of credit accumulation, as well as optional units, helping to increase qualification efficiency as well as further increase relevance to individual students.

Requirements for flexibility were discussed in relation to different areas that contribute to student experiences of the qualification, including the need to accommodate different types of students, different learning styles, different learning or employment contexts, and so on. Across the different qualifications in our sample, a range of different student groups were mentioned including adults already in employment, students who are self‑taught, students at different starting points in their learning journey or with different educational backgrounds, special-needs students, or those who respond better to hands-on, experiential learning. Interestingly, only 2 of the AOs in our sample specifically referenced having to accommodate students disengaged from education as a particular motivation for choosing the CASLO approach. Ultimately, the AOs thought that flexibility was key to student engagement but also contributed to the validity of qualification results.

[…] they’re great for people who are disengaged, with people who learn in different ways, people who’ve been out of education for a long time, I think the nature of them allows more people to access them and I think it’s that balance between being able to work through a qualification and know actually as you go you are achieving something.

Construction_L1

So, we’ve got quite a diverse student body, we need to engage them, they need to feel it’s relevant what they’re doing, and we’ve got quite a large adult learner population as well, so those dual facets of flexibility and engagement are really important to make sure that students are engaging with their learnings or getting the most out of it.

Construction_L5

Flexible teaching and learning through flexible qualification delivery and design

Most AOs mentioned aspects of flexible delivery which are helpful to supporting diverse student needs including flexible start dates, qualification duration (short and intensive, over a longer period, or without time constraints), possibility to resit or retake assessment, and whether qualifications might be taken full-time or part-time. It was suggested that students benefited from different delivery settings as well as the ability to combine different settings to suit their needs. This included college, private training provider or workplace settings, as well as being able to study independently. Students were also thought to have benefited from different modes of delivery, that is, in-person or online. The absence of, or relatively flexible, entry requirements were also mentioned as an aspect that supports students with different backgrounds and starting points.^{[footnote 1]}

[…] the time that we allow is flexible, so the guided learning and the total qualification time, there’s no maximum, the students who need longer to learn the skills or the knowledge, our qualification allows for that and the students can retake, so the people that can’t achieve maybe the highest attainment timeframe, then they have longer to master the skills and the knowledge.

Construction_L1

I think one of the real benefits of things not being in the college is it’s a sort of roll on roll off programme. Not like no new starts to September.

Fenestration_L2

AOs also mentioned aspects of qualification design such as discrete units that can be taken independently of each other at different times as supportive of different student circumstances. Within this, optional units or content that could be selected to tailor the qualification to specific student vocational needs, interests or contexts were seen as additionally beneficial. Discrete units were also seen as helpful for instilling the sense of engagement from achieving small steps and a sense of progression along the learning journey.

We also have obviously an element of optional content in many of the qualifications, which, again, gives a unique aspect in terms of making those qualifications relevant and meaningful for learners.

Business_L3

And actually, achievement is a little bit of a safety net, isn’t it? I’ve done that unit now, whoa fantastic, I’m not going to get all the way to the end and fail.

Construction_L1

Flexible assessment

Several AOs emphasised flexibilities in assessment in terms of a wide range of assessment methods (or ways to generate evidence if naturally occurring) that might be used, as well as flexible assessment timings, as important in their qualifications. These were mostly seen as helpful in supporting integration of formative and summative assessment, different student circumstances and strengths, as well as different progression pace through being assessed when ready.

[…] it allows students opportunity to progress in their own time and when they’re ready to be assessed, and I think that was one of the purposes of the qualifications. And it’s a really good opportunity to test those skills that are required to be demonstrated in their own pace really.

Teaching support_L2

Some AOs also suggested that flexibilities around assessment approaches supported the integration of assessment into the delivery process, helping to make exhaustive assessment across the entire domain of learning less burdensome. Formative feedback as integral to continuous formative or summative assessment was seen as particularly beneficial in terms of engaging students and further facilitating the mastery approach in these qualifications.

[…] doing it this way allows them to have multiple assessments over a period of time […] where they can naturally generate the evidence to show that they’re competent; whereas, maybe, doing an assessment at the end would have to be very tailored, structured, you know, and you wouldn’t be able to cover everything in that. So, I think in that way that does come back to the flexibility again […].

Adult care_L3

this is where the feedback comes into play as well, is inspiring them and encouraging engagement and progression. You’ve got the formative assessments within those initial units, and then you’ve got the summative units that they’ve got to pass. […] that developmental feedback really plays a strong part in the student engagement, I think.

Creative_L3

Contextualisation of learning and assessment

Some AOs discussed the benefits of “hands on”, “immersive” learning within practical, skills‑based areas as being engaging for students. Within this, the theme of contextualisation of learning and assessment emerged strongly in the responses. The flexibility of the CASLO approach was deemed to facilitate contextualisation of learning and assessment to student’s environment and local context. This was seen as particularly relevant for qualifications that operate internationally. Several AOs explicitly linked contextualisation of learning and assessment within realistic, vocationally relevant, situations with increased engagement from students, facilitated by direct relevance of the qualification to their vocational aspirations or context. Assessment in realistic settings was also seen as fundamentally important for ensuring the validity of the assessment and providing additional reassurance about students’ competence to qualification users.

But just as a plumber that can bend pipe and solder pipe is no good unless they can apply it to a practical building situation or something, you know, the synoptic summative assessment in the project-based assessment in the final unit allows them to bring all that together and demonstrate how they can apply that practically. And I think that’s what gives confidence to HE providers where these students progress to or for those that go into industry, it’s knowing that not only have they got a base level competency against those building blocks, but they’ve also demonstrated their ability to bring all that together in a real-world example.

Creative_L3

It isn’t hypothetical, it’s a real thing that you can think, I understand that, I connect with that, and actually that creates a sense of excitement and interest, and the potential for lots of other resources and teaching and learning to come into play.

Business_L3

Some AOs explained that this kind of contextualisation is facilitated by writing the LOs and/or AC at a sufficiently high generality level, yet sufficiently transparently, so that they could be interpreted, taught, and assessed in the local context while still retaining the focus on the fundamental principles or skills that are relevant for the qualification. One AO also suggested that replacement of AC, which allow direct grading, by numerical marking, would present barriers to contextualisation of assessment.

I think […] what’s meaningful, what’s at the heart of [this qualification] is about that authenticity, experiential learning, and learners being able to feel like they understand what they’re learning, and they can put their fingers on it. If you start to put marks on those internal [assessments], […] there’s far more that you’ve got to dictate to make it work, and so it takes away the authenticity of learning. It takes away the contextualisation, because we dictate far more from an assessment point of view.

Business_L3

Transparency

Most AOs highlighted aspects of transparency for all users, including teachers, students and different stakeholders, as another key advantage of the approach. A couple of AOs specifically mentioned clarity and precision of language used in their specifications as a vehicle to transparency. Some views also emphasised the transparency emanating from the content being sufficiently broken down and often mapped directly to assessment requirements. This transparency was deemed to facilitate the interpretation of the meaning of student grades by qualification users and afford a clear link with the relevant professional standards, including in qualifications operating internationally.

It makes things clear in terms of what needs to be achieved in order to pass the qualification, which makes things clear for the learner, but it also makes things clear to everybody involved at every stage of the qualification, so if you’re talking about one particular aspect, then actually everybody that’s involved will know what aspect that is.

First aid_L3

They’re very clear in the language between what is a pass, what is a merit and what is a distinction, and that then assists centres in terms of managing tutorials and the kind of more pastoral elements of supporting students in centre, because it allows them to use very specific terminology from the specification, from the assessments, to then enable students to set individualised targets for their progression and development throughout the year.

Creative_L3

Some AOs noted that transparency of assessment requirements and standards also helped establish consistent assessment expectations across different centres, despite contextual differences. Transparency of assessment requirements (including through feedback from assessors) was also seen by several AOs as important to give students a sense of ownership of and agency within the learning and assessment process, reduce assessment-related anxieties, and help chart the path for students on how to improve. Some AOs particularly emphasised the benefits of the clarity of the learning journey itself for students (separately from clarity of assessment requirements), including for those that might be self-taught. It was also suggested that the explicitness of the CASLO approach helps make it clear for teachers exactly what they needed to teach.

So, one of the benefits that I kind of marked down in having this sort of learning outcome approach and then the assessment criteria linked to it is it’s very clear from the outset what the expectations are for the learners in what they’re going to be doing so they know exactly what’s expected of them and that gives us very consistent assessment expectations across different centres as well because we’re telling them this is what you need to do, and this is what you need to exhibit. Evidence types may vary but we are asking for them to perform the same demonstration of hitting a criteria.

Creative_L2

You can take charge and you can see exactly what you need to do, you don’t have to rely on someone else to tell you what to do, or interpret it, we try and make it perfectly clear.

Chef_L2

Mastery learning and assessment

Guarantee of a valid and dependable result

The main justification for the use of the mastery model across a range of exemplar qualifications was the guarantee that the model was seen to provide a rigorous, consistent and dependable qualification result, across the entire domain of learning, producing “fully rounded” persons that stakeholders know what to expect from.

[…] it feels like when you’re testing somebody’s competence you do need to have that mastery approach. […] I suppose it’s a risk-averse approach really. But when you’re testing someone’s competence on things like health and social care or health and safety, it feels like risk averse is the right way to do it.

Adult care_L3

This justification was generally linked with comments about the importance of the guarantee across the entire domain because being able to function sufficiently well across the entire domain was necessary for that occupation. While this was often flagged as important for safety-critical reasons, there was a more general view that qualification results needed to map fully onto what is valued in a profession and that there was nothing superfluous in a qualification that did not need to be learnt and evidenced. This view was held by the AOs irrespective of whether their exemplar qualifications were classified ‘confirm competence’ or ‘dual purpose’.

The qualification is challenging, it’s hard. There is a lot for a student to be aware of and to manage, but that is reflective of the industry that they’re aspiring to go into. You couldn’t deliver a project to a client in which you’ve done really good at 75% of it and really badly at 25% of it and expect a good result. You have to show up for each of the different elements. And we feel that’s reflected in the assessment model.

Creative_L3

[…] the fact of achieving all of the learning outcomes and all the assessment criteria, that’s essential. If they weren’t essential to the role, it wouldn’t be in there.

Fenestration_L2

Some AOs suggested that the mastery model was required to ensure that students evidence comprehensive ability to apply a range of different attributes that are interwoven, and are, in that sense, all equally important to learn and assess in a mastery model.

So, through the learner’s journey on the qualification, you know, we are developing a comprehensive understanding, an autonomous application of what we define as the creative process. So, it’s a requirement for the students to achieve all of the learning outcomes, because we feel that a student can’t evidence a comprehensive ability to apply those attributes if they can’t apply all of them. They are interwoven.

Creative_L3

Supporting mastery learning

It was not always easy to disentangle views about the benefits of mastery assessment from those of mastery learning. There was a sense from some comments that mastery learning would be required for most of these qualifications, and the jobs that they prepare the students for, irrespective of whether there was mastery assessment, as demonstrated by the following comment:

[…] in the hairdressing sector there’s five things […]: cutting, colouring, styling and so on. Those skills are fixed. But you need all of them. So, any learning model where you’ve got sort of grading and compensation, it sort of makes employers twitchy because, you know, just from going into a salon, if the colour starts to go green but they’ve been an excellent stylist in terms of the style you’re not going to be happy as a client […].

Hairdressing_L2

Some comments suggested that exhaustive mastery assessment helps to drive exhaustive teaching and learning.

And you know you’re teaching absolutely everything. The provision knows you’ve taught absolutely everything, because you’ve had to, because you have to test it.

Teaching support_L2

However, some respondents explicitly suggested that mastery learning, alongside qualification achievement, was valuable in itself as it motivates students and instils them with confidence in their abilities to do the job that they are preparing for.

[…] there’s something about achieving the entirety of the qualification, all the learning outcomes, all the assessment criteria that actually does give them a sense of wider achievement than achieving a qualification in part or maybe just being entered for a science exam where the highest grade you can get is a C.

Construction_L1

[…] when we were developing this qualification and we were talking to stakeholders, they were very clear that this mastery model or this approach actually kept their student engaged, because they realised that they had to work hard throughout all parts of the course to get the desired grade that they had.

Creative_L3

Some AOs recognised the high stakes nature of their CASLO qualifications, due to the mastery model, but they thought that this model helped to prepare students for the demands of progression to higher levels of learning or demanding jobs, and was thus justified. Another AO thought that the mastery approach delivered in a way involving collaboration between students and tutors helps students arrive at a complete understanding of how to do a job.

[…] they could very easily fail the qualification based on one small aspect. Which makes it high stakes in terms of what they’re doing with assessment, but the feeling is that all of these learning outcomes need to be exhibited by learners for them to be able to move on to the next part of their career. Particularly in these qualifications, […] where the next stage of their career does often mean sort of more vocational training which is very intensive […].

Creative_L2

I would say the approach is actually a very strong one from an educational point of view that the tutor and learner are working together to bring that learner to really make sure that they understand how to do a job.

Adult care_L4

Other reasons for adopting the CASLO approach

Some of the AOs in our sample suggested additional reasons for adopting the CASLO approach, which appeared to be motivated by certain external pressures rather than benefits for learning or assessment. These other reasons mostly revolved around a combination of historical practices and/or specific requirements of the sector that the qualifications served, or from regulatory bodies. Some AOs suggested that they chose to continue with the CASLO approach in their exemplar qualifications rather than introduce alternative approaches to minimise disruption to centres and students or to avoid confusing the marketplace with differing approaches in related qualifications. While these were rarely cited as primary reasons, it was not always possible to disentangle the relative weight of external pressures from learning and assessment-related benefits on AO motivations.

[…] there’s already, within the aesthetics industry itself, some very specific criteria and outcomes that people have to meet to gain an accreditative qualification in these topic areas, which is all completely set out by Health Education England, the JCCP, the CPSA and the National Occupational Standards. So, if you take all of that guidance and interpret it, there’s a very clear set of learning outcomes that have to be met anyway. So, just the nature of it means that CASLO was the only sensible approach that we could think of anyway.

Skin peel_L4

Yeah, and I also guess it’s the fact that we’ve got SVQs and we’ve got qualifications down here, we didn’t want them to be vastly different, because that would just confuse the marketplace.

Fenestration_L2

Some AOs particularly emphasised the attachment of employers or their broader sector to this approach, observing that the benefits of the approach outweighed the increased challenges and costs of running these types of qualifications.

We’re still sort of working on that with employers to try and understand why and where this has come from, but there’s a real attachment to that NVQ brand. […] that sort of style and this whole promise of job readiness […]

Hairdressing_L2

There’s cheaper ways and easier ways to do this, but we choose to do it this way because that’s what the creative arts industry needs and it’s what our students need, and it’s best for the students and best for the creative arts because it develops the talent in the way that we want to.

Creative_L3

While all AOs highlighted several benefits of the CASLO approach, their initial reflections about benefits were sometimes qualified by recognition of some of the challenges that the approach also brings. We discuss these in the next section, alongside AO responses to the potential problems associated with the CASLO approach in the literature.

1. Few exemplar qualifications had specific entry requirements imposed by the relevant AO. However, centres or study programmes sometimes have their own entry requirements which the AOs do not have control over. ↩