Assessment

Assessment

 

The difference between the formative and summative roles of assessment was proposed by Scriven in 1967 (Dann 2002:28 & Bennett 2011:6). Formative Assessment, or Assessment for Learning as it is often referred to, is in the eyes of Black & Jones ‘any assessment for which the first priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose of promoting pupils’ learning’ (2007:4). Bennett believes that it is ‘some thoughtful integration of process and purposefully designed methodology or instrumentation’ (2011:7). It is therefore clear that formative assessment requires a great deal of planning and careful design on the teacher’s part to be successful in light of what Black & Jones and Bennett have said. One part of the assessment process is providing feedback to students.
According to Fautley & Savage formative feedback ‘informs the student with regard to what they should be doing next in order to improve’ and that feedback must involve ‘a dialogue between teacher and student’ (2008:42-3). Jones & Tanner state that ‘feedback is not a summative end-point, but a starting point for future learning’ (2006:52).

Hattie (1992) stated that the ‘most powerful single moderator that enhances achievement is feedback’ (cited in Clarke 2005a:67). From my own experience as a pupil,  the way a teacher reacts and feedbacks to a pupil can have a plethora of effects- as Hattie states these could enhance achievement or as Clarke (2005b:85) points out it could also have negative consequences. Lawrence highlighted when writing about failure, ‘it is not the failure itself that is the problem. It is the attitude that teachers... have towards the child’s failure’ (2009:112). Clarke wrote that ‘feedback has been a mainly negative experience for most children’ (2005b:85), asserting that ‘traditional forms of feedback have, in many cases, led to regression’ (2005a:67). If this is the case that feedback can have both positive and negative effects upon achievement and progression, what then distinguishes feedback that enhances achievement to feedback that leads to regression?

Kluger and DiNisi (1996) undertook a comprehensive analysis of research studies into feedback and found that although there was generally a positive impact upon students in around 40% of the cases examined the effect that feedback had was deemed to be negative (cited in Jones & Tanner 2006:47). In the past teachers have tended to focus on four key elements when providing feedback: the presentation of the work; quantity of work produced; surface features (in particular spelling) and the perceived effort put in by a pupil (Clarke 2005a:70). Such features of marking were reported by OFSTED (2003) who believe that the marking and feedback teachers provide often ‘fails to give sufficient guidance... about how to improve’ (cited in Jones & Tanner 2006:50). This view is echoed by Jones & Tanner who assert that the process of giving students’ work grades is often ‘overemphasized’ and that this occurs at the expense of offering constructive advice on improvements (2006:50). Whilst teachers may believe that providing information on a level attained is beneficial and students can use this information to gauge what would be necessary to move to a higher level, Stobart argues that for a pupil any such information is ‘too deeply encoded’ (2006:142). Pollard et al (2000) argued that in the education set-up of today which is ‘dominated by high stakes tests’ the feedback that is provided by teachers is ‘largely judgemental and rarely formative’. This over time undoubtedly impacts upon a pupil and negatively impacts upon their self-efficacy (in Harlen 2006:76-7).

As any form of assessment carries ‘some form of emotional impact’ as observed by Torrance and Pryor (1998 cited in Fautley & Savage 2008:44), the process of giving grades to pupils, although allowing pupils to see their achievement based upon national benchmarks appears to be detrimental to the learning process. Jones & Tanner believe that grading pupils constantly only convinces the less able that they lack in ability and causes a lack of confidence in their ability to learn and demotivates (2006:50). Black & Wiliam also underline the negative effects of grading and marks on not only the less able student but also the high achiever. They believe that if a student is awarded a high mark then they lack and impetus to improve and strive for better (2006:92). Black and Jones also assert that such marking means that high attainers may also become reluctant to tackle tasks which they perceive as difficult as they cannot be sure of success and attaining high marks (2007:7). Harlen refers to such students as being ‘extrinsically motivated’ and viewing work as performance rather than as learning, asserting that such students use ‘passive rather than active learning strategies and avoid challenges’ (2006:76).

When a teacher awards a grade or mark for a piece of work Kohn believes that the learning stops (cited  in Stobart 2006:142). Instead of focusing on the work that they have done students begin to try and reconcile the mark that has been awarded with their perception of themselves as learners, thus their energies are directed away from the task and any learning (ibid). Black and Jones underline that this is the case when comments on how to improve are also provided along with a mark as pupils ‘tend to ignore the comments and focus upon the mark’ (2007:7). If this is the case then it would appear that no feedback can be truly formative if it is provided with a grade, mark or level because a learner’s attention is directed away from the formative nature of the feedback to the summative mark that has been awarded.

The literature puts forward numerous points as to what constitutes effective feedback. James (1998) asserted that the oral feedback was the most effective form of feedback (cited in Jones & Tanner 2006:48). Whilst this may be the case and in an ideal world it would not doubt be very beneficial to be able to feedback to students individually and engage in immediate conversation about their work, with the large class sizes and time constraints teachers have to contend with this seems somewhat unworkable in today’s education system.

Whilst there is no one single model as to how to provide feedback to pupils there is a general consensus throughout the literature I have read as to what effective feedback looks like. Jones and Tanner highlight the importance of the message showing ‘how to improve rather than failure to meet a standard (2006:48) this is a view that is shared as in 2002 The Assessment Reform Group stated that ‘information and guidance in order to plan the next steps’ was necessary for pupils (cited in Fautley and Savage 2008:44). The Assessment reform group also asserted that methods which ‘protect the learner’s autonomy, provide some choice, and constructive feedback, and create opportunity for self-direction’ were desirable (cited in Clarke 2005a:72). It is clear that here the Group stress the importance of pupils taking ownership of their own learning and making their own decisions as to their next steps.

The idea of the pupils having an active role is shared by other academics- Fautley & Savage refer to feedback in the form of a ‘learning exchange’ which entails ‘contributions from all parties (2008:44), whilst Black & Jones write of an ‘alternation of feedback pupil to teacher and from teacher to pupil’ (2007:4).

As I have outlined numerous academics are wary of marks and grades within feedback (Kohn 1993, Black & Jones 2007, Gardner 2006), seeming to prefer a comment only approach to feedback. Black and Jones believe that comment only feedback enables students to develop ‘task involvement’ as opposed to ‘ego involvement’. They assert that such task involvement is beneficial to the learning process as it convinces students that they can learn from errors and improve, regardless of any previous achievement (2007:6-7). The importance of task involvement is also outlined by Butler (1987/8) who believes that comments relating to the task and the way a student has approached it are necessary as they focus on ‘something which is in the control of the student’ and therefore a learning opportunity, rather than comments which provoke ego involvement (cited in Jones & Tanner 2006:52). Fautley and Savage also lean towards comment only marking as they point out that with the absence of grades students are more likely to take note of the comments they have received and make the appropriate adjustments (2008:46).

Another key area that the literature points to is providing time for students to react to the feedback they receive. Clarke asserts that teachers find themselves repeating the same comments to children for one of two reasons: either the students were not given the chance to carry out the improvement on that particular piece of work or they did not have the opportunity to look at the skill again in another guise in a timely manner (Clarke 2005b:87). OFSTED also highlighted the lack of opportunity afforded to pupils to ‘reflect on their comments’ (cited in Jones & Tanner 2006:50). It is therefore suggested that time needs to be planned into lessons where pupils are given the time to look at feedback and make adjustments to their work so that feedback becomes a learning opportunity. Black and Jones also assert that such an opportunity is ‘essential’ so that learners are able to see that a teacher really wants to see improvement in a piece of work (2007:7).

A final area where there is a large amount of consensus is the involvement of the students in the marking and feedback process. I have already written of feedback as a two way process, but numerous pieces of literature highlight the importance of self- and peer-assessment (DES 1989 in Dann 2002:73, Black & Jones 2007:8, James 1998:176 in Fautley & Savage 2008:46). According to the DES, self-assessment increases ‘awareness, motivation and involvement’, all of which are key to the learning process. James (1998) believes that if pupils are to learn from what they have done and build upon it they need to develop the skills to evaluate their own performance and identify differences between their actual levels of performance and desired levels. He stresses that this is a process that must be completed by the student themselves if they are to learn from it as they need to ‘internalise the process’ and that this learning cannot be done by teachers for students (cited in Savage & Fautley 2008:46).

Whilst many academics extol the benefits of formative assessment and feedback on pupil achievement, there are others who have expressed doubt about the causal relationship between the two. Kluger and DiNisi (1996) support the idea that formative assessment practices lead to achievement gains but this position has been criticised as an ‘oversimplification (Bennett 2001:13). Rodriguez (2004) explained that ‘no clear interpretation’ was possible (cited in ibid). Furthermore, Black & Williams state that comparing various studies that examine the effects of formative feedback does not provide adequate proof for gains due to the ‘underlying differences between the studies’ which means that ‘amalgamations of their results have little meaning’ (ibid:11). Shute (2008) wrote that despite the large body of research that has been undertaken there exists ‘many conflicting findings and no consistent pattern of results’ (cited in ibid:13).

 

February Session Reflections

SURFACE AND DEEP LEARNING
Marton and Saljo (1984) distinguished between two different approaches to learning, namely surface level and deep level learning.  Surface level learning shows a measurable increase in knowledge – memorising facts that can be reproduced, acquiring skills that can be retained and used as necessary. Deeper learning involves making sense or abstracting meaning through relating part of the subject matter to the real world. It involves interpreting knowledge and understanding reality in a different way.

Biggs and Tang (2007) highlighted that certain behaviours and attitudes amongst both students and teachers encourage students to adopt one of the two approaches.

The intention to merely achieve a basic level pass instead of a determination to do well amongst students leads to a surface level approach to learning. I have seen this in my own classroom where students are content to achieve a C grade in aspects of the exam and the phrase ‘so long as I pass I don’t mind’.  Teachers having similarly low expectations can exacerbate the problem of students aiming for a minimal pass.  A teacher’s behaviour can also reinforce this approach, when students are assessed for independent facts, on a personal level I could be doing this by setting vocabulary tests to test understanding and knowledge of individual lexical items. Additionally, when students are given insufficient time to engage in a task or activity a surface learning approach is adopted to enable them to produce answers, therefore the pace and timing of individual activities within a lesson may determine how effectively students learn.

Teachers who foster deeper learning amongst students have high expectations of their pupils. Their teaching builds upon prior knowledge and aims to elicit an active response from the students. Misconceptions are confronted and addressed within lessons, so that students are able to make sense of and re-interpret their knowledge and comprehend the world around them. A classroom where deeper learning is to take place must also have a positive working environment, to allow pupils to discuss their understanding, and challenge their perceptions of reality.

Considering my own practice I do believe that my teaching involves many of the aspects that encourage deeper learning, and aspects that foster deeper learning have been noted by other staff observing lessons. However there is still some way I have to go to improve my practice particularly with pupils in the lower school, so that I move away from activities and tasks that encourage a surface level response. That said this could prove to be a challenge due to the set-up of the GCSE examination, which promotes a rote memory approach to controlled assessment tasks and also a single lexical item test on foundation tier reading and listening papers. The use of higher level thinking skills from Bloom’s taxonomy could definitely enable me to move towards a classroom where deeper level learning consistently takes place, by moving away from re-call and identification activities and moving towards Bloom’s words such as analyse, synthesise and evaluate in all learning objectives.

 

 

 

Multiple Intelligences

Gardner put forward his theory of multiple intelligences in his work Frames of Minds (1983). He explains that traditionally intelligence was considered a single entity that could be trained to learn anything, his theory explained that this was not the case and that there exists a multitude of different intelligences, which are independent of one another. Gardner created a provisional list of seven intelligences. Gardner’s theory was widely accepted by educators, though questions were raised regarding the difficulty of teaching separate intelligences.  Gardner responded by explaining that the multiple intelligences theory allowed for seven different ways of teaching that introduce concepts in ways which students are most capable of learning it rather than distortion taking place.

Having undertaken a personal assessment of multiple intelligences, the results that I achieved I could have predicted. I scored highly on Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical intelligences, areas of intelligence that have been traditionally valued by schools and the education system. My Inter- and Intrapersonal intelligences also scored far more highly than my Bodily-Kinaesthetic and Musical intelligence.  Considering the types of intelligences I leant towards and how this impacts my preferences when learning I looked at and reflected upon the way I present information in my lessons. It is evident that my lessons are influenced by a linguistic and logical-mathematical approach, not just in the way I present information but also the type of activities I set both in the classroom and for homework. Considering this I set my year 9 students a menu of different homework tasks linking into our current topic to suit a number of the different intelligences.

Topic: school rules and modal verbs

People Smart- Creating a guide for other students explaining the topic

Logic Smart- Creating a poster explaining the formation of sentences using modal verbs

Image Smart- Create a poster of the school rules in your school

Word Smart – Create an article about school rules

Many of my top set students selected to create a poster, when asked why they had selected this option they bemoaned the fact that they never get to make posters anymore. Some students selected other options that I have included in class before (guides for others, grammar explanations). When the same task was given to students in other sets absolutely all students selected the poster option. Whilst again this could be for the reason that many students wanted to do a poster as it was something different, upon asking one student his response was it is easier than the other tasks.  This statement in terms of the linguistic concepts that students needed to apply to complete the task successfully is not true. To complete all of the tasks students needed knowledge of the topic vocabulary and an understanding of sentence structure in a modal construction. What was different was the way I was asking the students to present and explain this knowledge.

 This made me whether the education system’s preference for certain types of intelligence has lead students to reach the top sets as they learn in a style that is perhaps most commonly catered for in schools, and were information and tasks presented in a way that suits every style of learner would attainment increase across the school.

On reflection my intelligences impact significantly on the way I present material to my students and the type of tasks that I set them.

 

 

Emotional Aspect of Learning

Memories of learning languages evoke quite an extreme response. Whilst leading an EPS session for associate teachers I saw first-hand the negative attitudes towards MFL due to experiences they had had as students in schools. When asked which adjectives and emotions they linked to their language learning experience the vast majority were negative, with words such as ‘terrified’, ‘embarrassing’ and ‘confusing’ being recorded multiple times. Sylwester (1994) underlined the impact that emotions can have on learning, stating that ‘emotionally stressful school environments are counterproductive because they can reduce a student’s ability to learn’. Considering this statement and my classroom practice, it is vital that I create a classroom environment where students do not feel threatened or judged in anyway. Looking back at my own experience as a student in school and learning MFL, the moments that I have the most clear memory of is occasions when I felt stupid or embarrassed- despite these experiences making up only a fraction of my overwhelmingly positive experience of learning French and German.

 

This leads me onto consider the type of learner I was at school. Despite having negative experience of MFL and other subjects, my teachers had created a resilience and determination in me to succeed. Claxton’s theory of the 4 Rs underpins in his view what a successful learner is. Resilience is what I believe helped me whilst at school most, and is in my view having had many discussions with other staff something which we are failing to foster. Far too often students simply give up if they don’t get something correct on their first attempt- the education system today is one where failure is rarely experienced and so students are not taught from a young age to deal with the emotions of learning, and are ill-equipped to cope when they do come across concepts they struggle to initially grasp or searching questions that require deeper learning as thus far surface learning has been sufficient to pass exams and tests.

Claxton also highlights reflectiveness as an element of a successful learner. I believe that my practice and that of the schools has developed in the last two years with the use of purple pens and Gadsby techniques to encourage students to reflect on their learning. However, one element of Claxton’s ‘reflectiveness’ which I believe I do not explicitly include in my practice is ‘meta-learning’ that is understanding learning and yourself as a learner. This idea is perhaps discussed with sixth-form students more than in the lower school, especially in reference to vocabulary learning and preparation for controlled assessment, but I don’t think that many, if any, of my students would be able to explain their understanding of learning and themselves as learners.

Claxton also states that we need pupils with resourcefulness, who are ready and willing to learn in different ways and an element of reciprocity, so that students can learn alone and with others, developing collaborative skills, empathy and interdependence.