The use of context in assessment

Why an exam paper is not all that different to a practical task

When we talk about assessment, we often end up imagining students sat in exam halls scribbling answers to questions, or writing essays. However, there are many legitimate assessment types that look very different to this.

Students may conduct a geographical field study, research historical artefacts, analyse a live theatrical performance, participate in a mock trial, make a Dragon’s Den pitch, perform a piece of music, or compete in a sporting event.

What makes these assessments feel legitimate is their authenticity, in other words how true they are to the traditions of the subject and what it means to master the discipline. Historians practice their discipline by studying artefacts, musicians perform, and sports men and women compete. When we enable students to participate in the traditions and knowledge-building technologies of the subject, we give them a flavour of what it is like to practice the discipline.

However, we must be careful not to get carried away in our pursuit of authenticity. School students are not practitioners, neither are they working at the boundaries of human knowledge or achievement. Learning a subject is very different from mastering a discipline. Whilst a component of Art as a curriculum subject is skill in creating artwork, we also want students to gain cultural capital. Whilst in PE we value high performing athletes, we also want students to learn about physiology and fitness. And whilst in Business Studies it is fun to start your own business as a project, creating future entrepreneurs is not the goal of the subject. For the most part, the school curriculum is academic rather than vocational in the sense that students are studying subjects rather than preparing to practice a discipline.

But we can view this variety of assessment types in another way, as contextualised. Contextualised assessments are rooted in the real-world rather than some higher theoretical plain. When is contextualisation useful and what purpose does it serve?

Semantic gravity

Semantic gravity is a termed coined by Karl Maton to describe the extent to which meaning relies upon a specific context. According to this theory, concrete concepts have high semantic gravity and abstract concepts are low in semantic gravity.

For example, as I write this article, it is sunny outside and I can feel some warmth through the window. This knowledge is highly contextualised. However, the knowledge that would help me understand the thermonuclear reactions that are taking place within the star that provides this warmth is a generalised form of knowledge, low in semantic gravity. The terminology is not intuitive, so I will tend to use terms like contextualised and concrete (for strong semantic gravity) and abstract and general (for weak semantic gravity).

The above example may lead us to conclude that semantic gravity tells us something about the value of knowledge, but that is not so. Both forms are valuable in different ways, and the real value may be in the relation between the abstract and the concrete.

Some school subjects lean more towards one end of the semantic spectrum than the other. It is also the case that some subjects tend to lead with one more than the other.

Think about a typical history lesson. Students are likely to be learning about actual historical event; what happened, to whom, and when. Semantic gravity is strong. Occasionally, students may be asked to reflect on the ‘lessons from history’ or ‘big questions’ that arise – a moment in the clouds – but inevitably they will be dragged back down to the specific. In some subjects, you must immerse yourself in examples and eventually it yields propositional statements. The academic Christine Counsell¹ says that history’s ‘natural forms of accounting’ are narratives and stories. From these you can build up generalisations and propositions, but Counsell argues that you must never start with the proposition or generalisation, or teach it in isolation: there should be a ‘constant conversation with particulars’. This is teaching grounded by semantic gravity.

Contrast history with the subject of economics. Economics (at least at school level) is only concerned with the particular in so far as it supports or refutes theoretical constructs which seek to explain and predict economic behaviour. Mastering abstractions is key to success in the subject – the drawing of a supply and demand diagram or talking in the abstract about inflationary pressures or economic shocks. Semantic gravity is weak in that ‘knowing’ is not tied to context.

If this concept is new to you, take a moment to think about the subject you teach. It may lean strongly one way or the other. Or you may find that some aspects of the subject are more concrete and some more abstract.

Semantic waves

When we teach, whichever subject it is, we tend to oscillate between the concrete and the abstract. If we plotted this on a graph, with time on the X-axis and and semantic gravity on the Y-axis, we would see an erratic wave. For this reason, it is said that we teach in semantic waves.

If you scan back through this article, you will see that I have been writing in semantic waves, oscillating between the concrete and the abstract. The last paragraph was low in semantic gravity (a generalisation), whereas this paragraph is high (providing a concrete example). Here is how this looks if we plot it (with a little help from Chat GPT):

[In the footnote is a breakdown of an AI analysis of the semantic gravity of each sentence so far]²

The theory is that encountering knowledge in semantic waves helps us make meaning, therefore build knowledge. Sometimes we will linger for longer on the general or on the particular, but probably not for long. [See below for how Chat GPT recommends I improve the piece in this regard]³

Semantic thresholds

What might this theory teach us about assessment?⁴

If I were to test you on your understanding of the content of this article, I would seek both to determine that you understand (at least in basic terms) the concept of semantic gravity and that you can apply this concept to the subject you teach, and perhaps to your approach to teaching. I might ask you a question which appears low in semantic gravity such as ‘Define the concept of semantic gravity’, but I might expect you to illustrate your understanding with examples. Or I might provide a script of a teacher’s explanation of a concept and ask you to code each sentence according to its semantic gravity, or even plot this on a graph. If I wanted to really test you, I might ask you to analyse the teacher’s explanation and make suggestions for how she could improve her explanations to support her students in making meaning. In either case, I want to see your ability to move between the general and the specific.

We often expect ‘good answers’ to make links between the concrete and the abstract. This zone is known as the semantic threshold. This threshold may be approached by starting with the specific and moving towards generalisations (as in History) or vice versa (as in Economics). It is important when designing assessments that we consider what semantic gravity range is required for a ‘good answer’. High-level abstraction is rarely the goal, neither is a knowledge of only the particular.

What is the desired degree of context dependence in an assessment? This depends mostly on what kind of knowledge is the subject of the assessment. However, it also depends on the learner. Novices may find it difficult to see past the surface features of a problem and may need scaffolding to break free of the pull of semantic gravity. In contrast, expertise brings the ability to notice deeper structures within contextualised problems.

The semantic lens

Given our understanding of semantic gravity and its role in teaching and assessment, would should we make of the authentic assessments discussed earlier?

We might reflect that we do not wish for these assessments to be purely about the particular. The geographical field study must provide opportunities to show understanding of the subject through the rigorous application of theory, the business pitch is an opportunity to demonstrate understanding of concepts such as profit and competitive advantage, participation in competitive sport must demonstrate the application of strategic game-play and technique. Whilst the form of assessment is context-dependent, there remains a semantic threshold which we want respondents to operate within.

Equally, the written papers taken in sterile, regulated conditions must make use of context too. The maths test will contain contextualised problems, the history paper will include artefacts, the business exam will employ case studies, and previously unseen poems will turn up on the English assessment. Each subject has its own approach to nudge students towards the semantic threshold. In this regard, the breadth of assessments we might observe - form exam hall to field work - aren’t all that different. Perhaps we should be less concerned with an assessment’s authenticity and more interested in how students make meaning within the subject and demonstrate this.

1. Counsell, Christine. 2020. “Better Conversations with Subject Leaders: How Secondary Senior Leaders Can See a Curriculum More Clearly.” In The researchED Guide to the Curriculum: An Evidence-Informed Guide for Teachers, edited by Clare Sealy, 130–69. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt Educational Ltd.

2

• When we talk about assessment, we often end up imagining students sat in exam halls...
  SG+ (Concrete image of an exam hall).

• However, there are many legitimate assessment types that look very different to this.
  SG- (Abstract concept of “legitimate assessment types”).

• Students may conduct a geographical field study, research historical artefacts...
  SG+ (Specific, real-world examples of tasks).

• What makes these assessments feel legitimate is their authenticity...
  SG- (Theoretical definition of “authenticity” and “discipline”).

• Historians practice their discipline by studying artefacts, musicians perform...
  SG+ (Concrete examples of professional roles).

• When we enable students to participate in the traditions... we give them a flavour...
  SG- (Abstract idea of “knowledge-building technologies”).

• However, we must be careful not to get carried away in our pursuit of authenticity.
  SG- (Conceptual warning about curriculum design).

• School students are not practitioners... Learning a subject is very different from mastering a discipline.
  SG- (Philosophical distinction between school and mastery).

• Whilst a component of Art as a curriculum subject is skill in creating artwork, we also want students to gain cultural capital.
  SG+ to SG- (Starts with a concrete skill, ends with abstract “cultural capital”).

• Whilst in PE we value high performing athletes, we also want students to learn about physiology and fitness.
  SG+ to SG- (Starts with concrete athletes, moves to scientific concepts).

• And whilst in Business Studies, it is fun to start your own business... creating future entrepreneurs is not the goal...
  SG+ to SG- (Starts with a concrete project, moves to an abstract goal).

• For the most part, the school curriculum is academic rather than vocational...
  SG- (Abstract theory of curriculum types).

• But we can view this variety of assessment types in another way, as contextualised.
  SG- (Introduction of a new theoretical framework).

• Contextualised assessments are rooted in the real-world rather than some higher theoretical plain.
  SG- (Defining the theory of contextualisation).

• When is contextualisation useful and what purpose does it serve?
  SG- (Abstract question setting up the next section).

• Semantic gravity is a termed coined by Karl Maton...
  SG- (Pure academic definition/theory).

• According to this theory, concrete concepts have high semantic gravity and abstract concepts are low...
  SG- (Explaining the mechanics of the theory).

• For example, as I write this article, it is sunny outside and I can feel some warmth through the window.
  SG+ (Highly localized, immediate personal context).

• This knowledge is highly contextualised.
  SG- (Stepping back to label the concrete example).

• However, the knowledge that would help me understand the thermonuclear reactions... is a generalised form...
  SG- (Universal scientific theory).

• The terminology is not intuitive, so I will tend to use terms like contextualised...
  SG- (Meta-commentary on text terminology).

• The above example may lead us to conclude that semantic gravity tells us something about the value...
  SG- (Abstract evaluation of the theory).

• Both forms are valuable in different ways, and the real value may be in the relation...
  SG- (Philosophical point about the relationship between scales).

• Some school subjects lean more towards one end of the semantic spectrum...
  SG- (Generalised claim about school subjects).

• Think about a typical history lesson. Students are likely to be learning about actual historical event...
  SG+ (Specific context of a history classroom and specific events).

• Occasionally, students may be asked to reflect on the ‘lessons from history’... but inevitably they will be dragged back down...
  SG- to SG+ (A brief wave up to abstract lessons, then pulled back to concrete details).

• In some subjects, you must immerse yourself in examples and eventually it yields propositional statements.
  SG- (Abstract rule of learning).

• The academic Christine Counsell says that history’s ‘natural forms of accounting’ are narratives and stories.
  SG+ (Focusing on the specific medium of stories).

• From these you can build up generalisations... there should be a ‘constant conversation with particulars’.
  SG- to SG+ (Moving from generalizations down to particulars).

• This is teaching grounded by semantic gravity.
  SG- (Theoretical summary of history).

• Contrast history with the subject of economics.
  SG- (Setting up a conceptual contrast).

• Economics... is only concerned with the particular in so far as it supports or refutes theoretical constructs...
  SG- (Highly abstract description of a discipline’s goal).

• Mastering abstractions is key to success... drawing of a supply and demand diagram...
  SG- (Even the “concrete” action here is drawing a theoretical model).

• Semantic gravity is weak in that ‘knowing’ is not tied to context.
  SG- (Theoretical summary of economics).

• If this concept is new to you, take a moment to think about the subject you teach.
  SG+ (Directly addressing the reader’s personal, immediate context).

• It may lean strongly one way or the other. Or you may find that some aspects...
  SG- (Abstract application of the reflection).

• When we teach... we tend to oscillate between the concrete and the abstract.
  SG- (General law of teaching).

• If we plotted this on a graph... we would see an erratic wave.
  SG- (Describing the overall pattern of the text).

3. Key Takeaways from Your Text’s Profile

• High Flatline in the Middle: The section explaining Maton’s theory (Sentences 12–17) stays very abstract. This is common when introducing a brand new framework.

• Deep Dips: The text successfully plunges into deep concrete gravity twice: during the “sunlight through the window” example (Sentence 18) and when discussing the mechanics of a history lesson (Sentence 25).

• The “Double Step” Down: In sentences 9, 10, and 11, the text uses a structured rhythm (Art, PE, Business) to transition the reader smoothly from concrete practice to curriculum theory.

If you are editing this piece, we can look at ways to create more semantic waves in the denser areas.

4. Credit to this paper which explores semantic thresholds in tertiary science education and asks what degree of context dependence may be desirable: (PDF) Recovering Knowledge for Science Education Research: Exploring the “Icarus Effect” in Student Work