Assessment Practice. Prt 2.

The value of formative `discourse` can be found in the dialogue between learners, and teachers. This dialogue is not always verbal: it can be the use of `traffic lights` or `thumbs up/thumbs down`, or written feedback without a grading, for example. The discourse between learners, and teachers, can lead to discovering areas for development with the cognitive processes being used in specific classroom scenarios. An example of this could be a pupil who is learning mathematics, and manages to successfully tell a teacher that two plus two equals four. If the teacher accepts this answer, and the pupil has either guessed, or learned that specific answer to that specific question from some outside source, then no learning has taken place. This can be summed up, using an additional example, in the table below: However, if the teacher was then to ask the pupil to describe the working out behind their answer, the response would allow the teacher to evaluate how successful learning had been. This can then lead to the teacher seeking to develop pupil learning by turning the them from competitive "ego-involvement" (by seeking to placate teachers adhering to a right/wrong dichotomy) to progressive "task-involvement" (by seeking to understand the cognitive process behind the question) (Black (2007, p. 3)). This can be summed up in the table below: This is further backed up by Carless (2005, p.44) discussing Black et al. (2003). It is also a concern with pupils getting a grade or level, and then ignoring the feedback given because they want to compare and contrast their marks with other pupils. This approach also has another benefit: Black and Wiliam (1998, p. 3) state, "One very recent study is entirely devoted to low-attaining students and students with learning disabilities, and shows that frequent assessment feedback helps both groups enhance their learning (Fuchs et al. 1997)." Broadfoot and Black (2007, p. 18), suggest that this could be because, "such students can only achieve if assessments allow them to use those modes of expression in which they can be fluent, and this means that multimodal expressions, involving varied combinations of art, craft, oral and verbal modes, must be recognized." In this way, formative assessment becomes about the ideal pedagogical approach to enable learners to express themselves. It is important that outcomes are varied as this allows for a greater understanding of what learning has taken place during the lessons. In addition, if a pupil can show through one "mode of expression" that they understand the work, but not through others, then it may suggest that the problem is not with understanding the concept as much as it is with not understanding the mode of expression. At my A placement school APP was adopted primarily because of its use of formative assessment. The variety of outcomes could represent a more rounded view of what pupils were capable of achieving. Conversation 3 states, "APP makes assessment more varied, and also more accurate... Not all outcomes have to be written." Conversation 5 states, "There is immediate, formative feedback as the pupils continue... All of this helps create a sense of engagement that helps to stop pupils becoming frustrated." However, because of how formative assessment was being used through APP, they do not completely align with best practice in theory. In this model constant moderation, levelling, and target-setting take place. The creates two problems: 1)Constant moderation means that marking takes priority over feedback. In fact, when given extensive feedback on how to improve, one pupil stated that they did not usually receive that level of feedback. 2)As stated earlier, target-setting and competition can cause pupils to ignore feedback, and instead choose the immediate gratification of finding out who achieved the highest grade/level. However, whilst my own experiences and observations have suggested that this could be an area in which the A placement school develops, it should be noted that conversation 1 states that formative marking does take place within the school during GCSE coursework: "Assessment at year 10 is formative. Pupils are given comments and targets on the first draft, but no level, as this tends to encourage improvement." This supports the case for the use of formative assessment, as it suggests that learners are developing their work based on feedback.

Summative Assessment

However, whilst formative assessment can be viewed as an educational `panacea`, the feeling about summative assessment is often mixed. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2007, p. 1) states that, "Assessment, as David Boud (2000) has observed, has to do `double duty` - and on many fronts. It is called upon to be rigorous but not exclusive, to be authentic yet reliable, to be exacting while also being fair and equitable, to adhere to long-established standards but to reflect and adapt to contemporary needs." Meanwhile, in placement school A, conversation 2 states, "In practice, the SATs assessed what pupils could not do, and didn`t encourage developed answers." Harlen (2009, p. 250) states, "The more the demands for accuracy, the more the tendency to restrict the assessment to those outcomes that can be unambiguously marked correct." All three of these statements refer to different issues with summative assessment. The QAA quote suggests that cognitive dissonance is common in summative assessments. It is fair to say that in trying to assess everyone fairly, summative tests run the risk of assessing no-one accurately. Criterion referencing in the National Curriculum (NC) has meant that everyone is working towards the same goals, but it raises the issue of whether this means it is `dumbing down` learning. Summative assessment is also the way in which convenient data on school attainment is collated and published (QAA (2007, p. 1)). This raises questions about the authenticity of the results in representing achievement in schools. Mansell et al (2009, p. 5), states, "If, for example, the fate of a school may hang on a single set of test results, are the data they generate reliable enough to serve as a measure of the overall quality of that institution? Are they valid in measuring all that is felt to be important in education? Do they ultimately provide information that will help pupils improve?" These are important concerns for education practitioners. It may be that there are systems in place to help schools whose pupils are not meeting national standards of attainment, but it seems as though a change of policy can often see some schools sacrificed for political appropriation. As it is thought that AfL, APP, and formative methods of assessment provide a more rounded view of attainment in education, it follows that they would provide a better measure of attainment. As conversation 2 shows, at classroom level there has been waning confidence in summative assessment because it is not forward looking. Marshall (2007, p. 1) states, "The essence of summative assessment... is that it looks backwards." This statement is both the greatest asset of summative assessment, and its biggest problem. In looking backwards, it allows all learning up to that point to be conveniently assessed. This is why it is so popular as a tool for measuring attainment in schools. In theory, if a pupil has learned something they should be able to demonstrate it. The traditional form of examinations serves to provide an environment that is informed by scientific inquiry: the only thing different in every case is the pupil and their learning, as that is what is being tested. In practice, pupils are often influenced by external factors which are rarely taken into consideration in examinations. Anyone who has ever performed an experiment can tell you that this would cause problems with generating accurate results. However, as stated earlier, whether a test is summative or formative is based upon the way it is used. Traditionally, these forms of examinations either provide feedback in the form of a grading or levelling, which Black (2007, p. 3) stated caused ego-involvement and instant gratification, with little scope for learner progression. In other words, it told them how well they did, but not necessarily how to improve upon it. In some respects, the use of APP at placement school A is also level orientated. In observation 1, the teacher refers pupils to the marking criteria when questioned about the marks they have received. This could mean that pupils who do not understand the marking criteria may not ask a second time about their marks because they may feel the teacher was not interested in answering their question. Cowie (2005, p. 150) states, "They described assessment as a teacher responsibility and saw no role for themselves in seeking help to extend their understanding. This is problematic given that teachers are often responsible for perhaps thirty pupils." There should be no assumption of absolutes in a pedagogical approach, and this reaction by pupils should always been in the back of the teacher`s mind. Whilst having high expectations of pupils can inspire them, it is also practical to perhaps make a note of the question, and ask the pupil if he looked it up the following lesson. Harlen`s (2009, p. 250) quotation, meanwhile, brings together the problems looked at in both the previous quotations. It makes summative assessment have a closed, right/wrong dichotomy, and is perhaps best embodied in the multiple choice test. In these examinations, pupils can get a right answer by guessing, or by a process of elimination. Whilst that does demonstrate a handy cognitive process, it may not measure the cognitive process the test was aiming to assess. The reason such summative testing is preferred over more formative approaches to testing is that they are simple. The multiple choice test is easier to mark because every single question has only one correct outcome. Formative assessment, however, has as many outcomes as there are pupils doing the work: each one will have specific strengths and weaknesses that need to be addressed. The level of work also means that summative assessment is easier to use when collated by Local Authorities (LAs), or government appointed bodies. Whereas a summative assessment will often end with a value-judgement expressed by numbers or a letter, formative assessment with feedback is far more difficult to gather for the purposes of accountability. What this means, in essence, is that whilst formative assessment is useful, it isn`t necessarily useful as a means of accountability because of the amount of work required to gather the information and make a judgement about whole-class or whole-school progression. In many ways, this could be why Black and Dylan (1998) suggested formative assessment being used in an informal capacity. However, the success of APP as a means of collecting data for formative assessment at placement school A shows that teachers have responded to it in both ways. Conversation 1 states, "APP can be good when done right... There tends to be a lot of regular marking, which can be difficult." Conversation 3, meanwhile, states, "The main reason for this is a move away from standardised testing to giving a more rounded view of what pupils can achieve." It is hard to suggest how placement school A could develop their approach based on this because they are following a nationwide framework, and the staff already attend further training on a regular basis. However, whilst summative and formative assessment have been approached as separate thus far, it is necessary to come back to Taras (2007, p. 364) and Scriven (1967) and the way in which summative and formative assessment are part of the same process. As Marshall (2007, p. 1) stated, summative assessment is about looking back. It is logical that pupils cannot move forward if they do not know where they are to begin. Pupils` work that has been used as summative assessment can also be used for AfL purposes, such as feedback. In fact, this is often the best method we have for using formative `discourse`: it evaluates work that has been done, and can use the learners` experience as: individuals (self-assessment), in pairs or groups (peer-assessment), in one-on-one or two-on-one discussion with the teacher, or as whole-class discussion, to suggest ways in which to improve pupil fluency. In addition, it should be noted that whilst formative assessment and summative assessment are part of the same process, the Assessment Reform Group (1999, p. 2) states, "there is no evidence that increasing the amount of testing will enhance learning."