Purpose of Assessment Combined approach to improve and Feedback teaching and learning whilst informing reporting and accountability Lenore Adie Associate Professor in Teacher Education and Assessment
How shall we know them? Rowntree, 1987
Assessment Purpose Why are you assessing? Formative Summative Progressing learning during teaching Reporting Next-step learning Next-step learning Content + Process Learning goals Content + Process Learning goals Feedback Feedback Range of variables Range of variables Dialogic Reporting
Assessment purpose - Assessment design Exactly what What will you accept How will you knowledge do as evidence that a analyse and you want students to student has the interpret have? desired knowledge? evidence? What task(s) will How do you the students want them perform to communicate their to know it? knowledge? Adapted from Pellegrino, J.W., DiBello, L.V. & Goldman, S.R. (2016) Educational assessment is at heart an exercise in evidentiary reasoning. (Mislevy & Riconscente, 2005, p. iv)
Evidentiary decision-making design of formative high quality, multiple data assessment opportunities sources attend to Appraise the descriptive information for validity features of and relevance student work connect the data formative with instructional feedback is a plans - finer grain differentiation of size instruction
The indispensable conditions for improvement are that the student comes to hold a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher, is able to monitor continuously the quality of what is being produced during the act of production itself, and has a repertoire of alternative moves or strategies from which to draw at any given point. In other words, students have to be able to judge the quality of what they are producing and be able to regulate what they are doing during the doing of it. Sadler (1989. p. 121)
Engendering Motivation Fairness trust Fine-grained Right to details privacy Transparency
3 difficulties Lack of distinct in defining boundaries criteria Role of experience on interpretation Unanticipated qualities Sadler (1985)
How to enable students to be better learners through knowledge of criteria and developing expertise in their use? reduce trial and error attempts in students’ efforts to produce ‘good work’ promote practices and provide artefacts that develop evaluative experience and expertise
4 enabling conditions Students’ assessment for identities including Teachers’ students in assessment assessment identities practices The role of artefacts Social moderation
Teacher assessment identity Knowledge and skills Beliefs, confidence, role, feelings Development of expertise Professional standards Evidentiary decision making Use of data and evidence; artefacts. Moderation Looney, Cumming, van der Kleij & Harris (2017)
(Adie, 2016)
5.2 Provide Feedback to Students on Learning L: Model L: Exemplary Practice L: Support Colleagues School Lead (L) L: Initiate L: Programs Accomplished About Current HA: Highly Informed, Timely (HA) Needs in order to HA: Select Effective Range Progress Learning Judgements Proficient About Achievement Students P: P: Provide Relative to Learning (P) HA: + Targeted Goals P: + Effective e s G: Timely, Appropriate o p r u Graduate P Feedback G: Demonstrate an (G) G: About Learning Understanding Action Content Purpose (Adie, Stobart & Cumming, forthcoming)
Artefacts Exemplar Cognitive commentary Overall this student’s work sample is best matched with a ‘Developing +’ standard. This student generally expressed a point of view, used the exposition framework, provided some supporting evidence for the viewpoint and included some relevant details to provide information about life in the Gold Fields which are matched with the ‘Consolidating’ standard. However, the student needed to have written a final statement that referred to the viewpoint, explained the reason for her point of view in the thesis and made use of more specific conjunctions to strengthen the argument to achieve an overall ‘Consolidating’ standard. Adie & W illis (2016). Because this student did not offer a conclusion but demonstrated a ‘Consolidating’ standard against 4 criteria, on balance, this work has been rated at no more or no less than a Developing +’ standard. From the M eeting in the M iddle project (W yatt-Sm ith & Bridges, 2007, p. 8)
Moderation insights … you never really Teacher 1: …what I have understand what they’re found is that it is [criteria and standards] impossible to design about until you are criteria that work all the grading or you are using time and what you need them. to do is that you need to use them more as a … So, until you see them in operation it’s hard to know, but there is a Teacher 2: …a guideline? danger of being too detailed and almost Teacher 1: …a rough verbose with what you’re guideline and then you trying to do. need to see. (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2010, p. 34) (Wyatt-Smith, Klenowski, & Gunn, 2010, p. 68)
Student assessment identity Knowledge and skills Beliefs, confidence, role, feelings Development of expertise Self-assessment; Peer assessment Evidentiary decision making Use of data and evidence; artefacts.
Feedback as a dialogic process Van der Kleij, Adie, Cumming, 2016
Self-assessment Chang, Liang, & Chen, Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, 2013; and Huertas, 2012; Wyatt-Smith & Bridges, Fletcher, 2016 2007 Artefacts Criteria higher-performing students may be more inaccurate in SA (Hosein & Harle 2018)
Define the criteria by Do not turn self- which students assess assessment into their work self-evaluation by F A counting it toward Self-assessment: Implications for practice a grade Teach students how to apply the criteria E B Provide sufficient time for revision after self- assessment C D Give students Give students help in feedback on their using self-assessment self-assessments data to improve performance Panadero, Jonsson, & Strijbos, 2016, p. 306
Guiding Peer questions, assessment prompts Practice Rotsaert, Panadero, Schellens, & Raes (in press); Gan & Hattie (2014) Rubrics, Exemplars - Knowledge of standards and criteria Guidance Gan & Hattie (2014); Rotsaert, Panadero, Schellens, & Raes (in and press) instruction Tsivitanidou, Zacharia & Hovardas, (2011); Hovardas et al. (2014) Co-constructing and Psychologically deconstructing criteria safe conditions Leenknecht & Prins (in press) — Trust Harris & Brown (2013); Panadero, (2016)
(Adie, Stobart & Cumming, forthcoming)
System validity Site validity Political Localised accountability / knowledge, improvement situated contexts agendas, generalisable across sites (Freebody & Wyatt-Smith, 2004; Adie & Wyatt-Smith, 2018 in-press)
How shall we know them? Rowntree, 1987
Theoretical framework Robinson & Taylor (2007, p.8) four core values of student voice The recognition The requirement that power A conception of The possibility for for participation communication as change and relations are and democratic dialogue transformation unequal and inclusivity problematic Participation Equal power Transformation and democratic means actively seeks Dialogue inclusivity equitable (student) voice, enables require all opportunities takes it development voices to be to actively seriously and of shared listened to; and express ideas uses it to understanding acceptance of and to shape creatively solve diversity consequences problems
Theoretical ways forward - Student Voice Coaching to Lundy (2007) communicate their learning Space to express a view Audience to hear views Action on views expressed
Reconceptualising reporting communicating reporting progressing learning assessment expertise of teacher participation mutual teacher, ownership of and partnership student, and data reinterpretation inclusiveness family through dialogue
How shall we know Reporting: them? Student voice Assessment Student self- and identity peer assessment System and Assessment as site validity shared inquiry Dialogic feedback Assessment design Standards-referenced assessment as an interconnected system Combined approach to improve teaching and learning whilst informing reporting and accountability
Recommend
More recommend
