Analyse and explain different theories, principles, and models of communication and explain

ways in which they can be applied to teaching, learning and assessment. Give specific
examples.

Analyse and explain different theories, principles, and models of assessment and explain
ways in which they can be applied in assessing learning. Give specific examples.

Analyse and explain different theories and models of curriculum development and explain
ways in which they can be applied in developing curricula in own area of specialism. Give
specific examples.

It is the case that communication can be considered as the transmission of information in its
simplest form (Gravells and Simpson, 2014). It is based on an interaction between two or
more individuals, such as a teacher and a group of learners they are working with. Whilst in
its simplest form, it can be considered as the transmission of information (giving, receiving
and imparting), it can also subtly confer thoughts and feelings, and attitudes and values
(Petty, 2009; Machin et al., 2014). In fact, Hargie (2004) posits that the notion that there are
a range of factors involved in communication from cognitive to affective factors and
perceptual to performative factors.

The principles that underpin interpersonal communication are well considered and have
been well summarised by West (2006, pp. 26-27):

“Interpersonal communication is unavoidable”

“Interpersonal communication is irreversible”
“Interpersonal communication is rule governed.”

It is apparent that West (2006) considers interpersonal communication as an occurrence

that takes places with or without intention. For example, if a teacher were stood at the front
of a group of learners, and was not speaking, they would still be communicating at an
interpersonal level on account of their body language and how they are conducting
themselves. Moreover, West (2006) notes that following communication the message
conveyed cannot be retracted and whilst the contrary can also be conveyed, the message
initially put across persists. It is also the case that even the act of not speaking at all can
convey a message to learners (Machin et al., 2014). It has been noted by Hartley (1999) that
the rules of communication, whilst not being written, persist between interactions and that
they are dependent on a number of factors and can vary on account of familiarity and
cultural factors, for example. The rules associated with interactional discourses can vary
considerable and the varying rules will be applied in line with the varying context of the
discourse (Machin et al., 2014).

The theories relating to communication can be considered in line with two broad concepts
that depend on how they conceptualise the communication process, namely, whether this
centres on the transmission of information between individuals, or the relationship between
the individuals that are communicating with one another (Petty, 2009). A number of models
of communication have been suggested and many of these align with the transmission-
centred theory, the most basic of which is that of Shannon and Weaver (1949). The model
outlines that there is a ‘sender’ with a ‘message’. The ‘message’ is ‘encoded’ and sent via
means of a ‘channel’ and is subsequently ‘decoded’ by a ‘receiver’. For example, it may be
that if a teacher were explaining about what a learner must complete as a homework task,
the teacher would be the ‘sender’ and the learner the ‘receiver’, the ‘message’ would be the
information about the homework task and the ‘channel’ would be through speaking and
hearing. The model also outlines the notion of ‘noise’ which is essentially interference
leading to the distortion of the message (Hill et al., 2007). In the case of ‘noise’ within a
teaching session, this could be visual or auditory distractions or it could be disabilities,
learning difficulties or language barriers (Machin et al., 2014). The model is effective in that
it does explain how information is transmitted, however, it is flawed on the basis of it is
ground in technical communication theory as opposed to interpersonal communication. The
model is linear and as such infers that communication is one-way (Wallace, 2011), and
whilst this type of communication has its place within teaching, for example, for the
transmission of information during a presentation, the process is not just linear and as soon
as a learner asks a question, it becomes reciprocal. Additionally, it does not adequately
account for how messages need to be interpreted to be comprehended and it does not
account for how individuals may interpret messages in their own way, which may be
different to what was intended (Wilson, 2014).

The model of Shannon and Weaver (1949) was adapted by Berlo (1960) to devise the SMCR
model. It was essentially a conjunct version of that of Shannon and Weaver that combined
the ‘source’ with the ‘encoder’ and the ‘receiver’ with the ‘decoder’.

Source → Message → Channel → Receiver

The ‘channel’ of the model is the communication method and Berlo (1960) suggests that the
main means of encoding to this are speaking and writing, and the main means of decoding
from this are listening and reading. It is also the case that Berlo (1960) expands the model
stating the importance of consider the thought and reasoning processes of those involved in
the interaction (Curzon and Tummons, 2013). Moreover, the model also indicates the need
to consider factors such as the communication skills of those involved in the interaction as
these inherently influence it (Hill et al., 2007). A further model was devised by Lasswell
(1976) that was similar to the models proposed by Shannon and Weaver (1949) and Berlo
(1960), except that it included the notion of an ‘effect’, which was recognition of the
influence the message has on the individual in receipt of the information. For example, in a
teaching context, this may be a teacher informing a group of learners of an imminent
formative assessment, which if correctly understood, may well have the effect of getting the
learners to revise the content they have been taught in preparation for it. The models of
Berlo (1960) and Lasswell (1976) whilst developing on that of Shannon and Weaver (1949)
to include consideration of the broader contextual factors that influence the communication
process are similarly flawed in that they are linear models that do not adequately represent
the reciprocality of the communication process.

The communication process was also modelled by Osgood and Schramm (1954) who whilst
aligning to the transmission-centred theory of communication, utilised a circular model in
order to better represent the reciprocality of the communication process. As a part of this,
they included the notion of ‘interpretation’ also which indicated that the message conveyed
was subject to construing by the individual (Gould and Roffey-Barensten, 2014). The model
is argued as better representing the communication process within teaching as it permits
feedback into the communication process (Wilson, 2014) and recognises that
communication is likely to be an ongoing occurrence between teachers and learners, in that
they are likely to countless interactions over the course of a programme of learning.

Whilst the transmission-centred theories of communication have been well utilised given
that they are well grounded in practice another relationship-centred theory of
communication was proposed and modelled by Berne (1964). The model is based on the
theories of transactional analysis which are largely associated with relationships as opposed
to the actual process of communicating (Wilson, 2014). Berne (1964) asserted that
communication was at the centre of human relationships and that, as such, should be the
centre of communication modelling. He theorised that communication is a stimulus and
that, for example, individuals will respond when spoken to. However, he argues that these
responses are determined by the ‘alter ego state’ applied, of which three were theorised
(Gould and Roffey-Barensten, 2014). The three ‘alter ego states’ identified were that of
parent, child and adult. The parent ego state relates to authority, the child ego state relates
to dependence and the adult ego state related to independence (Wilson, 2014) and each
state was characterised with certain responses. It was further theorised by Berne (1964)
that for communication to take place effectively, the ego states must be equal and
congruent. For example, if a teacher as the adult speaks to a learner as the child,
communication will only be effective if the child accepts they are communicating with an
adult. If there is not neutrality, for example, if the learner as the child were not to speak to
the teacher as an adult and they responded disrespectfully this would lead to ineffective
communication. The model is effective in that it recognises the importance of the
individuals involved in the communicative interaction, however, it has been argued that is
somewhat overlooks the actual process of communication (Huddleston and Unwin, 2013). It
may also undermine the move towards learner-centred methods of teaching as the model
conceptualises learners as children (Wilson, 2014) when in actuality, by giving learners more
responsibility, the teaching process conceptualises them as adults even if this is ‘young
adults’.
It is apparent that effective communication can be considered as a crucial requirement
throughout the teaching cycle, from planning, to delivery, to assessing. Whilst it is important
at each stage, Shute (2008) argues that it is nowhere more important than within the
assessment stage. Moreover, such a notion is concurred with by Broadfoot et al. (2002, p.
12) who assert that “assessment is one of the most powerful educational tools for
promoting effective learning”.

The theories relating to assessment can be broadly categorised based on the position they
provide assessment within the learning process (Machin et al., 2014) and three such
theories have been proposed. The first theory is ‘assessment of learning’ which relates to
the measuring of learners’ knowledge or skills in line with specified criteria with a decision
made as to whether they are or are not competent. It is the case that assessment in line
with this theory tends to be more formalised and is generally summative, taking place at the
end of the learning process (Torrance et al., 2005). The underpinning purpose of assessment
that conforms to such a notion is that it can provide an overall summation of learners’
development and can lead to the certification of qualifications to recognise attainment
(Black et al., 2003). It may be the case that in a teaching context, the use of assessment that
complies with such a theory may take the form of an externally set multiple choice question
paper to examine learners’ theoretical knowledge about a particular subject. It has been
noted that such forms of assessment can be beneficial as they provide learners with a sense
of overall development in line with the acquisition of knowledge or skills (Torrance et al.,
2005) and the certification of qualifications can provide learners with enhanced
employment opportunities or career progression (Black et al., 2003). However, it should be
noted that such forms of assessment can be ‘all or nothing’ for learners and may not
adequately meet all learners needs if they require multiple competencies to be
demonstrated at one time (Machin et al., 2014). Moreover, Race (2001) identifies that
learners can often face such assessments with trepidation and that they can bring about a
number of negative feelings such as worry and frustration and can lead them to feel
vulnerable and inadequate.

The second theory is ‘assessment for learning’ which relates to the measuring of learners’
knowledge and skills and interpreting where learners are at in their learning and what they
need to progress. It is the case that assessment in line with this theory tends to be less
formalised and is generally formative, taking place throughout the learning process (Petty,
2009) and guiding it and the learners’ development (Torrance et al., 2005). The
underpinning purpose of an assessment that conforms to such as notion is not that it
‘grades’ learners necessarily but that it identifies where they are at, their strengths and
weaknesses and can guide their subsequent development (Rust, 2002). It may be the case
that in a teaching context, the use of assessment that complies with a theory may take the
form of recap quiz-based activities at the start of a teaching session to check learners’
knowledge acquisition from the preceding session. It has been noted that such forms of
assessment can be beneficial as they provide learners with indication as to their learning
process which can enable them to better manage their development and lead to them
taking more responsibility for their own learning (Florez and Sammons, 2013). Moreover, it
is also beneficial for teachers as it provides them with an indication of learner progress and
can identify where additional work is required. However, it is the case that the use of
assessment in line with such a theory can be weakened in the approach is not adopted
throughout an institution, for example, if it is utilised by a minority of teachers within an
organisation, it can make the measure unreliable and learners are likely to be unresponsive
to it (Dunn and Mulvenon, 2009). The third theory is ‘assessment-led learning’ which relates
to providing assessment with a critical position in the learning process, whereby learning is
regularly assessed and becomes a ‘routine’ part of the assessment process (Florez and
Sammons, 2013). Ultimately, it values the assessment of learning over the learning process
itself. In the context of a teaching session, this may be a teacher repeatedly testing learners
on a list of information that learners are trying to memorise for the purposes of an
examination. A benefit of such a style is that learners develop the ability to perform well
within assessments which can enhance attainment (Machin et al., 2014). However, it is
argued that whilst learners should be adequately prepared for assessments, such a style can
be counter-productive and detract from the learning process and encouraging learners to
see it as a ‘means to an end’ (Florez and Sammons, 2013). Moreover, Petty (2009) asserts
that the implementation of assessment methods aligned to such a theory leads to utilisation
of teacher-led styles being adopted within the teaching environment which can disengage
learners and in actuality lower the levels of attainment.

Whilst it is the case that there are different theories relating to the conduct of assessment,
there are common principles in line with which they tend to be conducted. The principles
advocated by Wilson (2014) are centred on CADET, namely: consistency, accessibility, detail,
earned and transparency. The principle of consistency relates to ensuring that the
assessment methods utilised are standardised and that the same situation would lead to the
same result for different learners, for example (Wilson, 2014). In practice this may be
utilising the same assignment task to assess all learners against their response to a health
and safety scenario within a coaching session at the same level. The principle of accessibility
relates to ensuring that all learners have fair access to assessment and that equality and
diversity is considered (Petty, 2009). In practice this may be utilising reasonable adjustment
for a learner with a learning difficulty in a multiple choice question paper exam, in line with
Awarding Body approval and guidelines. The principle of detail relates to ensuring that the
assessment utilised sufficiently covers the curriculum has been studied and meets all of the
required criteria from the specification and that the depth of learner response is sufficient
(Wilson, 2014). In practice this may be ensuring that during a practical assessment of a
learners’ coaching session, that a note is made against each criteria as to how it was met
practically, to act as evidence. The principle of earned relates to ensuring that all learners
have achieved their qualification justly and that the process has been rigourous and
maintained the integrity of the assessment (Tummons, 2007). In practice this may be
ensuring that learners’ work is their own, for example, by utilising and validating statements
of authenticity. The principle of transparency relates to ensuring that those involved in the
assessment process are aware of how it is to be undertaken (Wilson, 2014). In practice this
may be ensuring that learners are sufficiently briefed and provided with the opportunity to
ask questions about the assessment process prior to it being undertaken.

An alternative consideration of the principle of assessment is advocated by (Machin et al.,

2014) and centres on VACSRTP, namely: validity, authenticity, currency, sufficiency,
reliability, transparency and practicality. In comparison to the principles advocated by
Wilson (2014) there is much similarity and these can similarly be applied within the context
of teaching. For example, consistency could be considered as similar to validity and
reliability whilst detail could be considered as similar to sufficiency. The only exception to
this is the principle of practicality as suggested by Machin et al. (2014). The principle relates
to the balance of assessment between what can be feasibly undertaken and what is best for
the learner. In fact, it is argued by Rust (2000) that assessments are unlikely to fulfil each
principle at one, but as long as their fulfilment is balanced this will provide the learner with
the best opportunity to succeed.

The models of learning can be broadly categorised into formative or summative assessment
(Petty, 2009). It is the case that formative assessment is an interim measure of learners’
knowledge and skills and identifies their development at a particular point throughout a
programme of learning (Machin et al., 2014); therefore, it aligns to the notion of
‘assessment for learning’ theory. The benefit of formative assessment is that it is continuous
and provides learners with an indication of their progress and can support teachers in
developing session plans in line with their learners needs (Petty, 2009). It can also be
motivational for learners and provide them with impetus to further their development.
However, whilst it is the case that it is continuous assessment it can be conceived by
learners as continual assessment and as such can be considered by them as ‘over-
assessment’ (Wilson, 2014). In a teaching session a teacher may use formative assessment
at the end by providing learners with a written quiz-style test to identify how well they have
grasped the concepts of warm-ups and cool-downs in a coaching session, for example. On
the contrary, it is the case that summative assessment is a concluding measure of learners’
knowledge and skills and identifies their development over the course of a programme of
learning and summarises this at the end of it (Machin et al., 2014); therefore it aligns to the
notion of ‘assessment of learning’ theory. The benefit of summative assessment is that it
brings together and measures the sum of the learning that has taken place and enables a
judgement to be made regarding this (Wilson, 2014). It is noted by Race (2001), however,
that learners tend to approach such assessment with apprehension and unease, though
Torrance et al. (2005) argue that much of this unease can be overcome if learners are
adequately prepared by teachers. In a teaching session a teacher may use summative
assessment at the end of a unit of work to assess learners knowledge for the awarding of a
qualification and this may take the form of a written assignment. A contemporary
development in relation to models of assessment is the emergence of ipsative assessment,
which has been brought about due to increasing utilisation of self-assessment within
education (Wilson, 2014). It is the case that ipsative assessment requires learners to assess
themselves and their knowledge and skills in line with a set of standards. In practice it can
be used effectively to encourage learner self-reflection and can be used to monitor learner
progress and give insight into their perspective on this (Wilson, 2014).

In relation to the models of assessment form, an alternative conceptualisation is that which

identifies the way in which assessment judgements are made within the process. There are
three such approaches which have been modelled by Torrance et al. (2005), namely:
criterion-based, competency-based and norm-referenced. The criterion-based approach
results in assessment where a learner either passes, by achieving a standard, or fails, by not
achieving the standard. The success of the learners depends on their ability to reach these
criteria and they are able to make attempts to reach these until they are competent (Rust,
2002). The competency-based approach is similar in that learners must meet competencies
for success but unlike the criterion-based approach there tends to be a number of these and
they can be achieved over a period of time. The benefits to such approaches to making
assessment decisions around learner competency is that it provides learners with multiple
attempts to demonstrate competency which may not otherwise be possible, particularly if
there are a number of competencies (Wilson, 2014). However, Torrance et al (2005) argue
that such assessment approaches can lead to the development of no more than learners
who are able to demonstrate competencies within the context of an assessment and such
approaches have been criticised for making assessments ‘too easy’ (Wolf, 2011). This is
particularly the case is competencies are assessed in isolation (in that once a learner has
demonstrated a competency, there is no requirement for them to demonstrate this again in
subsequent assessments). The norm-referenced approach results is assessment in which
learners success is marked in line with one another and they are grouped in terms of
success by how well they do in comparison to one another (Torrance et al., 2005). The
benefits of such an approach are that large-scale assessments can be standardised so as to
ensure there is not excessive high-level attainment. However, such an approach assumes
that attainment is static, when success may actually continue to improve and as such
learners who may warrant higher attainment levels may well not achieve them (Stewart,
2013).

It is the case that whilst assessment is important it is only one part of the learning process
and as such should be considered within the broader context of the curriculum (Curzon and
Tummons, 2013). The definition of curriculum is a matter of contention; in its narrowest
form it can be considered as a ‘body of knowledge or skills that is to be transmitted’ (Gray,
Griffin and Nasta, 2000). However, Gray, Griffin and Nasta (2000) assert that curriculum
means much more and stands for much more in an educational setting. The notion is
concurred with by Print (1993, p. 9) who suggests that curriculum can be defined as “the
planned learning activities provided to learners by the educational institution and the
experiences encountered by the learners when the curriculum is implemented”, with such a
definition suggesting there is more to curriculum than just content. In fact it is the case that
alongside the curriculum, there is what has been deemed the ‘hidden curriculum’. The
‘hidden curriculum’ is about the less overt and more covert transmission to learners which
may put across more than knowledge or skills, and may well transmit thoughts, feelings,
values and attitudes (Kelly, 2011).

The theories relating to curriculum development can be broadly conceptualised relating to

how they model curriculum and there are two such notions, namely, product or process
(Machin et al., 2014). The product-related theories are those which conceptualise
curriculum development around the setting of objectives in line with the content that is to
be delivered, whereas the process-related theories are those which conceptualise
curriculum development around the interactions that take place around the delivery of the
content and centre on the teacher-learner relationship and delivery methods (Wilson,
2014). The theories around how curriculum development should be conceptualised have
informed a number of models that can be utilised by teachers to make decisions about how
they deliver a curriculum within their teaching context. It is important that due
consideration is given as the curriculum model implemented will influence the planning,
delivery and assessment strategies that are utilised and as such will impact directly on
learners (Gould, 2009). However, it must be noted that in practice, the decisions made by
teachers about curriculum models will be influenced and in certain instances determined by
organisations, Awarding Bodies, Funding Bodies and potentially political initiatives (Wilson,
2014).

A model derived from the product-related theory of curriculum development is the

objectives model, advocated by Tyler (1949). The model conforms to behaviourism in
relation to learning theory and can be considered relatively prescriptive in its mechanisms
(Petty, 2009). The model identifies learning objectives and structures learning and
assessment around these. The benefits to the use of such a model are in that it can be
standardised on a large scale and as such its implementation can enable organisations to
conform with Awarding and Funding Bodies (Wilson, 2014). The implementation of the
model can be particularly effect in delivering programmes that are modular, especially if
linked to graded levels of achievement. Moreover, it can be particularly useful if applied
when teaching learners of differing ability levels, those with special educational needs and
those with difficult to manage behaviours (Machin et al., 2014). For example, in practice the
model can be effective to differentiate in the planning stage by using adapted learning
objectives, such as ‘by the end of the session all/most/some learners will be able to’. In fact,
this model was developed by Davies (1976) who noted that learning objectives could also be
differentiated by verb usage; for example, ‘to know, to understand, to evaluate, to analyse’.
In application of this model, Tyler (1949) advocates consideration of the following:
  The purpose of education
 The learning objectives that are to be followed
 The organisation of the learning
 The assessment of the learning that has taken place

It is a systematic approach to teaching and one that is widely adopted in practice. In the
development of curricula within the context of sport, the product model can be effective
given the performative nature of the subject area and the requirement to utilise practical
skills that have ‘model’ performances (Armour, 2011). It is the case that such performances
need to be benchmarked and standardised and as such the model well suits the subject
area. There are disadvantages to the use of the model such as the fact that its structured
basis can lead to the adoption of an authoritative style of delivery which may disengage
some learners (Wilson, 2014). Moreover, it has been argued that the model tends to favour
shallow learning and as such Wilson (2009) questions the depth of learning that it can
facilitate. An alternative model that also aligns to the product-related theory is the content
model proposed by Hirst (1974). The model is abstract in its conceptualisation and focuses
on intellectual development in lines with values. Its purpose is to stimulate intellectual
consideration of a syllabus but there are no specified learning objectives though it
endeavours to produce opinions (Wilson, 2014). It has not been widely adopted within
practice given the uncertainty that it can provoke on the part of both teachers and learners.
It is apparent that the model has purpose but this is largely around philosophical debate and
as such limits its utilisation.

Contrastingly, the models derived from the process-related theory of curriculum

development were advocated by Stenhouse (1975). The models conform to humanism in
relation to learning theory and can be considered relatively descriptive in its mechanisms
(Petty, 2009). The model identifies the content of learning but situates this in the context of
their learning, for example, it is related to their learning preferences (Wilson, 2014). The
limitations to the use of such a model are in that it cannot be standardised on a large scale
and as such its implementation can make it more challenging to conform with Awarding
Bodies and Funding Bodies, for example. A form of process model is the situational model,
proposed by Lawton (1983) and Grundy (1987). The model is responsive in that it situates
learning in the context of society and the curriculum produced meaning that in line with
cultural changes, the curriculum changes similarly. The curriculum designed is analysed at
each stage to ensure it is ‘fit for purpose’ for both learners and the teacher (Wilson, 2014).
The benefits of such a model are that it endeavours to meet the needs of all that are
involved within it; this means that it takes into account learners’ individual needs and
attempts to meet them. However, the responsivity of the can mean that it places burden on
those involved in its delivery so as to ensure that it remains ‘current’ and it can be a lengthy
and arduous task to analyse each stage within its’ development. An alternative form of
process model is the problem-centred model, proposed by Bruner (1996). The model bases
itself on the premise that learners need to be able to apply their learning to develop it
beyond a surface level of understanding. It incorporates ‘discovery-based’ approaches to
learning and necessitates the use of reflection within the learning process (Wilson, 2014). A
benefit to the implementation of this model is that it can enable learners to develop higher
or deeper levels of learning in that they must solve and enhance problems, in order to learn.
However, on the contrary, it can be problematic in that it may not cover the breadth of the
curriculum if the problem is not approached in the right way and it may well lead to further
problems for learners making it a difficult process. It is the case, however, that Weyers
(2006) outlines methods for approaching learning activities that conform to such a
curriculum model to diminish the likelihood of such problems, namely:

 Organise the information

 Highlight the most important information
 Make the information meaningful and in context
 Check and refine learners understanding of the information
 Promote transfer of the information and its ‘generalisability’

Another form of process model is the expressive model proposed by Eisner (1985). The
model is based on experiential learning and has learners study issues that are of interest to
themselves. It is the case that such a model is not broadly utilised within the subject area of
sport given the nature of the subject (Armour, 2011). The model is better suited to more
expressive fields such as art, though it could be argued that it may have place within the
teaching of more creativity-based sports such as gymnastics.

It is apparent that curriculum development is an important consideration for teachers and

that it can have substantial impact on the progress of their learners (Curzon and Tummons,
2013). In deciding on what models to implement and what theories to align with, teachers
must be considerate of what is best placed within their area of specialism to meet the needs
of their learners. Moreover, they must give consideration to the wider factors that can
impact on the curriculum they deliver, such as political initiatives or the requirements of
Funding Bodies (Machin et al., 2014).
References
Armour, K. (2011). Sport Pedagogy: Teaching and Coaching. Essex, UK: Pearson Education
Publishings.

Berlo, D. (1960). The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice.

Stamford, CT: Thomson Learning Publishers.

Berne, E. (1964). Games People Play. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning:
Putting it into Practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M. and Stobart, G. (2002).
Beyond the Black Box. London, UK: Nuffield Publishing Foundation.

Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Curzon, L. and Tummons, J. (2013). Teaching in Further Education: An Outline of Principles

and Practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishers.

Davies, I. (1976). Objectives in Curriculum Design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Publishers.

Dunn, K. and Mulvenon, S. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The
limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education practical
assessment. Research and Evaluation. 14 (7): 1-11.

Eisner, E. (1985). The Art of Educational Evaluation. London, UK: Falmer Press.

Gould, J. (2009). Learning Theory and Classroom Practice in the Lifelong Learning Sector.
Exeter, UK: Learning Matters Publishing.

Gould, J. and Roffey-Barensten, J. (2014). Achieving your Diploma in Education and Training.
London, UK: Sage Publications.

Gravells, A. and Simpson, S. (2014). The Certificate in Education and Training. London, UK:
Sage Publications.

Gray, D., Griffin, C. and Nasta, T. (2000). Training to Teach in Further and Adult Education.
Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes Publishing.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis? Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Hargie, O. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research Theory and Practice. Hove,
UK: Routledge Publishing.

Hartley, P. (1999). Interpersonal Communication. London, UK: Routledge Publishing.

Hill, A., Watson, J., Rivers, D. and Joyce, M. (2007). Key Themes in Interpersonal
Communication. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill Education Publishers.

Hirst, P. (1974). Knowledge and the Curriculum. London, UK: Routledge Publishing.

Huddleston, P. and Unwin, L. (2013). Teaching and Learning in Further Education: Diversity
and Change. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Publishing.

Kelly, A. (2011). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Lasswell, H. (1976). Power and Personality. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company
Publishers.

Lawton, D. (1983). Curriculum Studies and Educational Planning. London, UK: Hodder and
Stoughton Publishers.

Machin, L., Hindmarch, D., Murray, S. and Richardson, T. (2014). A Complete Guide to the
Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training. Northwich, UK: Critical Publishing.

Osgood, C. and Schramm, W. (1954). How Communication Works. In W. Schramm (Eds.). The
Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Petty, G. (2009). Teaching Today: A Practical Guide (4th Edn). Cheltenham, UK: Nelson
Thornes.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum Development and Design. St Leonards, UK: Allen and Unwin
Publishing.

Race, P. (2001). A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. York, UK: LTSN Publishing.

Rust, C. (2002). Purposes and Principles of Assessment. Oxford, UK: Oxford Brookes
University Publishing.

Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical theory of communication. Champaign,

IL: University of Illinois Press.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research. 78 (1): 153-
189.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, UK:

Heinemann Publishing.

Torrance, H., Colley, H., Garret, D., Jarvis, J., Piper, H., Ecclestone, C. and James, D. (2005).
The Impact of Different Modes of Assessment on Achievement and Progress in the Lifelong
Learning Sector. London, UK: LSRC Publishing.

Tummons, J. (2007). Assessing in the Lifelong Learning Sector. Exeter, UK: Learning Matters
Publishing.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Wallace, S. (2011). Teaching, Tutoring and Training in the Lifelong Learning Sector. London,
UK: Sage Publications.

West, R. (2006). Understanding Interpersonal Communication: Making Choices in Changing

Times. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Weyers, M. (2006). Teaching the FE Curriculum. London, UK: Continuum Publishing.

Wilson, L. (2009). Practical Teaching: A Guide to PTLLS and DTLLS. Andover, UK: Cengage
Learning Publishing.

Wilson, L. (2014). Practical Teaching: A Guide to Teaching in the Education and Training
Sector. Andover, UK: Cengage Learning Publishing.

Florez, M. and Sammons, P. (2013). ‘Assessment for Learning’.

Available at:
www.cfbt.com/en-GB/Research/Research-library/2013/r-assessment-for-learning-2013
Accessed: 12.01.15

Rust, C. (2000). ‘Principles of Assessment’.

Available at:
http://www.medhev.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/databse/id436_basic_
assessment_issues.pdf
Accessed: 12.01.15

Wolf, A. (2011). ‘Review of Vocational Education: The Wolf Report’.

Available at:
www.gov.uk/governments/publications/review-of-vocational-education-the-wolf-report
Accessed: 12.01.15

Stewart, W. (2013). ‘Is there no way up for results?’ Times Educational Supplement – 24th
April 2014.
Available at:
www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6329987
Accessed: 12.01.15