Royal Army College

Lesson Overview

Lesson 01 set out why and what we assess, and Lesson 02 fixed the principles that any honest assessment must satisfy: it must be valid, reliable, fair, and transparent, and it must judge the student against a fixed standard rather than against the others in the room. This lesson is the practical follow-on. It asks a simpler question with a careful answer: by what means do we actually find out whether the student has reached the standard? There are three broad methods, and a great deal turns on choosing the right one.

The three methods are written assessment, which is good for knowledge; oral or questioning assessment, which is good for understanding; and practical or observation assessment, which is good for skills and is the most important method for soldiering. Each is usually judged against a checklist or a marking scheme, so that the assessor is reading off agreed points rather than trusting a feeling. Running through all of this is one governing principle: match the method to the outcome. A skill is assessed by doing it to standard, watched and judged against criteria, not by a written test alone. You do not certify that a national can apply a tourniquet by asking them to describe one on paper.

This is the knowledge layer. Writing a fair marking scheme, conducting a practical observation, and judging cleanly against a checklist while a nervous student works in front of you are skills, and skills are mastered by practice. Where the course requires it, your practical assessing is watched and signed off in person by a qualified assessor before you assess for real. By the end you will be able to name the three methods of assessment and say what each is good for, explain and apply the principle of matching the method to the outcome, recognise when a written test is the wrong tool for a practical skill, build a simple and fair marking scheme for a knowledge or oral assessment, and build a clear observation checklist for a practical skill that another assessor could use and reach the same result.

Key Terms

Method of assessment: the means by which evidence of learning is gathered, broadly written, oral, or practical.
Written assessment: an assessment answered on paper or screen, used mainly to test knowledge, such as facts, rules, sequences, and reasoning.
Oral assessment: an assessment by spoken question and answer, used to test understanding and the ability to explain or reason aloud.
Practical assessment: an assessment in which the student performs the task while the assessor observes and judges the performance against criteria. Also called observation assessment.
Marking scheme: a written guide that sets out the correct answers, the points awarded, and the rules for marking, so that any assessor marks the same script the same way.
Observation checklist: a list of the actions a competent performance must contain, each marked done or not done to standard, used to judge a practical task.
Criterion-referenced: judged against fixed criteria, can the student do the thing to the standard, rather than ranked against other students.
Performance criteria: the specific, observable points that together make up a task done to standard.
Holistic judgement: an overall judgement of a performance against the standard, used alongside a checklist for the parts that a tick cannot capture, such as control, sequence, and safety throughout.

Three methods, and what each is good for

Assessment is not one tool but a small toolbox, and the three tools do different jobs. Knowing which job each does is the first half of choosing well.

Written assessment tests what the student knows. It is the right tool for facts, definitions, rules, sequences, classifications, and reasoning that can be set down in words: the parts of a weapon, the steps of a drill in order, the rules of engagement, the reasons behind a procedure. Its strengths are reach and record. One paper can be sat by a whole intake at once, marked against a fixed key, and kept on file as plain evidence. Its weakness is that it tells you only what the student can write, not what the student can do. A national can name every step of casualty care in the correct order and still freeze, fumble, and fail when a real dressing must go on a real wound under time. Written assessment confirms the knowledge layer. It does not confirm the skill.

Oral assessment, that is structured questioning, tests understanding. Where a written test asks for the answer, an oral asks the student to explain, to reason aloud, to say why and what if. It is the right tool when you need to probe depth, follow up on a thin answer, or check that the student understands a thing rather than having memorised it. A good oral can distinguish the national who has grasped why we move from cover to cover from the one who has merely learned the phrase. Its strengths are flexibility and depth; the assessor can dig where it matters. Its weaknesses are that it is slow, taking one student at a time, and that without a marking scheme it drifts easily into an unfair conversation, harder for some than for others. Oral assessment is questioning turned into judgement, and like all questioning it must be planned.

Practical assessment, also called observation, tests skill. The student performs the task and the assessor watches and judges what is actually done against fixed criteria. This is the most important method for soldiering, because soldiering is overwhelmingly a matter of skill done to standard under pressure, not of knowledge recited at rest. Almost everything that matters in the field is proven this way: shooting, first aid, field signals, weapon handling, navigation on the ground, drill. Its strength is validity. It measures the very thing the course exists to produce, the national doing the task correctly. Its costs are time and consistency: it takes one assessor watching one student, and two assessors will judge the same performance differently unless a clear checklist holds them to the same points. The checklist is what turns watching into assessing.

   METHOD            BEST FOR              TYPICAL FORM            JUDGED BY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Written           Knowledge             paper / screen test     marking scheme
                     (facts, rules,        short answer, MCQ,      (answer key +
                      sequences)           ordering, scenario       point rules)

   Oral /            Understanding         structured Q&A,         marking scheme
   Questioning       (why, reasoning,      viva, talk-through       (expected
                      depth)                                        answers + cues)

   Practical /       Skill                 perform the real        observation
   Observation       (do it to standard,   task to standard         checklist +
                      under conditions)                             holistic judgement
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rule of thumb: the method must produce evidence of the OUTCOME the course teaches.

Match the method to the outcome

This is the central rule of the lesson, and the place where assessments most often go wrong. The method must match the learning outcome. Look at the verb of the outcome and let it choose the tool.

If the outcome says the student will know, state, list, or explain in writing, a written assessment is sound. If it says the student will explain, justify, or reason, an oral or a written scenario question fits. If it says the student will perform, apply, operate, carry out, or do a thing to a standard, then it must be assessed practically, by doing. There is no honest shortcut around this. A practical outcome assessed only on paper is not valid, which is to say it does not measure the thing it claims to measure, and an assessment that is not valid is worthless however neatly it is marked.

The classic error is to assess a skill by a knowledge test because a knowledge test is easier to set, sit, and mark. We test the application of a field dressing with twenty written questions about field dressings, because twenty questions can be marked at a desk in an afternoon, while twenty practical assessments mean twenty nationals worked through one at a time by a watching assessor. The written version is cheaper and faster and tells us almost nothing about whether the national can actually dress a wound. The cost has simply been moved out of the assessment and into the field, where it is paid by the casualty.

This does not mean written and oral methods have no place around a skill. They often combine. Knowledge underpins skill, and it is reasonable to confirm the underpinning knowledge by a short written or oral check and then to assess the skill itself by observation. The principle is not that practical is the only method; it is that the skill itself, the doing, must be proven by doing. Use a written test to confirm a national knows the principles of marksmanship. Do not let it stand in for putting rounds on a target.

   OUTCOME VERB                 ASSESS BY                 NOT BY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   State, list, name, define    written                   (fine on paper)
   Explain, justify, reason     oral, or written scenario  one-word written answer
   Identify, recognise          written or oral, or a      -
                                practical "show me"
   Apply, operate, carry out    PRACTICAL (do it)          written test alone  <-- error
   Perform to standard under    PRACTICAL, under realistic written test alone  <-- error
     conditions                 conditions
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   A skill assessed only on paper is NOT VALID. Make the student do the thing.

Building a fair marking scheme

A marking scheme is the written guide that lets any assessor mark the same answer the same way. It is what makes a written or oral assessment reliable. Without one, marking is a matter of mood and memory, and the same script earns a pass from one assessor and a refer from another. With one, the judgement is built before the first script is marked, and the assessor's job is to apply it, not invent it.

A simple, fair marking scheme has four parts. First, the question and what it is testing, so the scheme stays tied to a real outcome and does not test trivia. Second, the expected answer or answers, written out in full, including the acceptable variations, because students give correct answers in their own words and a rigid key marks good answers wrong. Third, the points and how they are allotted, so it is clear what earns the marks: one point per correct step named, say, or two points for the safety action that must appear, with it stated plainly when a point is for content and when it is all-or-nothing. Fourth, the pass standard, the score or the set of must-have points that decides pass or refer, fixed before marking begins, never adjusted afterwards to suit how the intake happened to do.

Two rules keep a scheme fair. Mark to the criteria, not to the person: the script is judged on what it says, not on who wrote it or how they did last week. And mark the same script the same way every time: if a point of judgement comes up that the scheme did not foresee, decide it once, write the decision into the scheme, and apply that decision to every script, including those already marked. A scheme that grows fairer as you mark is a good scheme; a scheme you bend differently for each student is no scheme at all.

   MARKING SCHEME  |  Item 4: state the immediate actions on a stoppage, in order
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Tests outcome   :  K2  recall immediate-action drill in correct sequence
   Expected answer :  1 safety/point in safe direction   2 cock   3 check
                      4 reload as required   5 carry on    (accept equivalent
                      wording; sequence must be correct)
   Marks           :  1 point per correct step in correct place        = 5
                      MUST-HAVE: muzzle kept in safe direction (point 1).
                      If muzzle discipline absent, item is REFER regardless
                      of other points.  (all-or-nothing safety gate)
   Pass standard   :  4 of 5 points AND the must-have safety point present
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Decided mid-marking? Write it in, then re-apply to ALL scripts.

Building an observation checklist

For a practical skill, the marking scheme takes the form of an observation checklist: the list of actions a competent performance must contain, each judged done to standard or not. It is the single most useful tool a soldier-assessor builds, because it is what turns watching a national into assessing a national, and it is what lets two assessors reach the same result.

Build the checklist by working through the task as a competent performer does it, and writing down the points that must be present. Good performance criteria are observable, things you can see or hear the student do, not states of mind; specific, so two assessors read them the same way; and set to the standard, including any condition of time, sequence, or safety. "Applies the dressing correctly" is too vague to mark; "applies the dressing over the wound with firm, even pressure, edges covered, secured without slipping" is something two assessors can both watch for and agree on.

Three further points make a practical checklist sound. Mark the safety-critical actions as gates: a performance that breaches safety, points a muzzle at a person, fails to check a weapon clear, ignores a hazard, is a refer whatever else was done well, and the checklist should say so plainly so the assessor does not have to decide it under pressure. Where sequence matters, the checklist must capture order, because doing the right actions in the wrong order can be doing the task wrongly. And leave room for a short holistic judgement beside the ticks, because a tick list captures the parts but not always the whole: the control, the smoothness, the safety maintained throughout, the sense that this national could do this for real. The checklist carries the assessment; the holistic line catches what a list of parts can miss.

   OBSERVATION CHECKLIST  |  Apply a field dressing to a limb wound
   Conditions: simulated casualty, dressing supplied, within 60 seconds
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   #  Action / criterion                                    Done   To std?
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1  Checks scene / own safety before approaching          [ ]    [ ]
   2  Exposes wound, no further harm to casualty            [ ]    [ ]
   3  Places dressing pad directly over the wound           [ ]    [ ]
   4  Applies firm, even pressure; wound edges covered       [ ]    [ ]
   5  Secures dressing so it does not slip                   [ ]    [ ]
   6  Checks for circulation beyond the dressing             [ ]    [ ]
   7  Reassures casualty throughout                          [ ]    [ ]
   8  Completes within the time condition                    [ ]    [ ]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SAFETY GATE: causes avoidable further harm to casualty -> REFER
   Holistic judgement (control, sequence, calm under time): ______________
   RESULT:  PASS  /  REFER          Assessor: __________   Date: ________
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   A second assessor using this sheet on the same performance should agree.

In Practice: choosing the method for a fieldcraft outcome

Corporal Verel of the Royal Army College is preparing the end-of-module assessment for a basic fieldcraft package. Two of her outcomes read: the national will state the rules for camouflage and concealment, and the national will move from cover to cover, unseen, across observed ground. She is short of time and is tempted to assess both by one written paper, which she could set the whole section at once and mark in an evening.

She stops and looks at the verbs. The first outcome says state. That is knowledge, and a written check is valid for it; she writes four short questions and a simple marking scheme with the expected answers and a pass standard of three of four, with the must-have point that movement and stillness are both covered. The second outcome says move, unseen, across observed ground. That is a skill, and a skill done under conditions. No written question can prove a national can actually cross ground without being seen. To assess it on paper would be to assess the wrong thing, cheaply, and to pass nationals who would be spotted and shot in earnest. So she keeps the written check for the knowledge, and for the skill she builds an observation checklist: uses available cover, moves at the right moment, keeps a low profile, no shine or noise, reaches the bound unobserved by the watching assessor, with a safety gate on never moving across a live arc and a holistic line for overall fieldcraft sense.

On the day she runs the short written check for the whole section first, then takes the nationals one at a time across the lane, marking each against the checklist and adding a one-line holistic judgement. Two refer, not because they failed the paper, which both passed, but because both were seen crossing open ground. Her co-assessor, using the same checklist on the same runs, reaches the same two refers. The marking scheme made the knowledge check fair, the checklist made the skill check valid and reliable, and matching each method to its outcome meant the result said something true: these nationals know the rules, and these two cannot yet move unseen. That is exactly what the assessment was for.

Check Your Understanding

Name the three broad methods of assessment and state what each is best at testing. For a learning outcome that reads "the national will load, make ready, and unload the weapon safely," say which method must be used and why a written test alone would not be valid.
You are writing a marking scheme for a short written assessment. List the four parts a simple, fair marking scheme should contain, and explain the rule that says what to do when a point of judgement arises during marking that the scheme did not foresee.
What is a safety gate on an observation checklist, and why is it marked as all-or-nothing rather than as one tick among many? Give one example of an action that should be a safety gate on a practical assessment.

Reflection (write a short paragraph):

Think of a skill you have been assessed on, in the Army or before it. Was the method used a true match for the skill, that is, did it actually require you to do the thing to standard, or did it lean on a written or spoken substitute? What did that choice of method prove about you, and what might it have missed?

Summary

There are three broad methods of assessment: written for knowledge, oral or questioning for understanding, and practical or observation for skills, the last being the most important for soldiering.
Each method should be judged against a marking scheme or an observation checklist, so the assessor reads off agreed points rather than trusting a feeling, and a second assessor reaches the same result.
The governing principle is to match the method to the outcome: read the verb of the outcome and let it choose the tool. A skill must be assessed by doing it to standard, not by a written test alone.
A practical outcome assessed only on paper is not valid, the commonest and most damaging assessment error, because the real cost is paid later in the field.
A fair marking scheme has the question and what it tests, the expected answers including acceptable variations, the points and how they are allotted, and a fixed pass standard, marked to the criteria and the same way every time.
A sound observation checklist lists observable, specific criteria set to the standard, marks safety-critical actions as gates, captures order where it matters, and leaves room for a short holistic judgement.
This lesson builds on Lesson 02 · The Principles of Good Assessment (valid, reliable, fair, transparent, criterion-referenced) and leads into Lesson 04 · Conducting an Assessment Fairly and Lesson 05 · Feedback, Recording, and the Result.
It draws directly on TRG 301 · Methods of Instruction, where EDIP teaches the very skills assessed here by observation, and connects to TRG 320 · Practical Training Safety Officer for the safety of practical assessment and ADM 220 · Course Records and Qualification Tracking for recording the outcome so the qualification is trusted.

Methods of Assessment