It Is My Right To Know

It is not just the teacher who is the sole contributor to evaluating a child’s piece of work but the child and peer’s views are also of great importance. Due to the demands of an active classroom it is difficult for teachers to be able to give quality feedback to every child on every piece of work completed daily. This is where an integrated and balanced approach to self and peer assessment enable pupils to reflect on not one person’s views but the views of others and self. This is not a process that comes natural to children as they do not have the experience and training of a teacher. Children are, however, honest evaluators and quick learners under the correct guidance from their teachers who inform children what they need to learn (learning intention) and how to recognise success (success criteria). If a child does not understand what or why a task is being undertaken due the learning intention not being clear or having too many aspects to meet then misunderstandings will arise. Children need to know what end product or process the teacher wants them to accomplish where:

‘knowing the leaning intention for every task is it seems, a child’s basic right as a learner.’
(Clarke S 2006: 47)

By sharing the learning intentions with children, not only are they more focused and ready to start tasks with less time-wasting tactics it also provides a clear focus when evaluating. Once the desired goal is clear, feedback needs to also take into account present position and a way to close the gap (Sadler 1989 cited Black & Wiliam): where is the child in their learning and what do they need to do to move on. This part of the evaluation process is much easier for teachers as they look at each child on individual levels. Children, on the other hand, can be self-centred in that they may judge another child’s work to their own ability. This is where peer evaluation can fall down as it is not just the end product or the concrete evidence that is assessable but the internal learning process. Even for teacher’s this task can be difficult as:

‘tuning into the learner’s mind to clarify what learning has taken place, to identify what learning difficulties are being experienced and to introduce future tasks is one of the biggest challenges for classroom teachers.’
(Smith I 2004: 18)

It is hard to tune into to every pupil’s mind because the classroom teacher is always rushing to get through a set of work. Even when they question pupils they quickly want the correct answer through their addiction to the right answer and wanting to proceed to the next part of the lesson. Children who don’t respond promptly or with understanding become disaffected as they are not giving ‘thinking time’ or the delivery of the lesson does not meet their learning style.

The Nail In The Coffin

The learning and teaching aspect of assessment falls under the umbrella of AiFL as a sub-category Assessment AS Learning: learning how to learn where learners become more aware of what they learn, how they learn and what helps them learn (LTS ). Learning how to learn has parallels with Vygotsky’s constructivist model of learning where adult interaction and discussion enables teachers to extend children’s understandings (Durkin K 1995). Giving a mark or a basic comment are no longer deemed appropriate to enable a child to progress as the mark or vague comment only gives a message of what a child did not achieve not how they can achieve it. Research reveals that marking is really a teacher chore that they do because they need to have all the work marked to date resulting in the ‘time monster’ being against them. Marking is also done ‘away’ from children with feedback coming too late after the learning. What Assessment AS Learning advocates is that feedback to children should be more constructive with comments about how to achieve rather than marks. This does not eliminate using marks as children do need to know how well they are doing but they do not need constant reminders when they are failing they need advice where:

‘The real purpose of marking is to give good feedback to children about how well they did against a specific learning intention and some ideas about how they can improve.’
(Smith I 2004: 18)

The Answer

Black & Wiliam (1998) advocated that formative assessment was the answer to these problems. Their research proved that formative assessment, day-to-day ongoing assessment based on how well children fulfil learning intentions, had a more positive impact resulting in raised standards for all levels of abilities compared to summative assessment, snapshot testing which establishes what a child can do at that time (Clarke 1998). Black & Wiliams came to classify assessment as:

‘all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged.’
(Black & Wiliams 1998: 2)

By assessing formatively the end product is no longer the focus but the process where the teacher becomes more informed of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ a child has learnt to enable future learning to build on what the child needs to learn and adapts the learning to meet the child’s style of learning. Teachers now need to:

‘focus on how children are learning. They need to tune into children’s minds to connect with their thinking and feelings…The rational for formative assessment is based firmly on our growing understanding of how we learn and how good teachers teach.’
(Smith I 2004: 10)

Harmful Effects Of Assessing

The turning point in assessment in education was through Black & Wiliam’s (1998) report Inside The Black Box which highlighted many of the negative aspects of assessment at that time backed by evidence that:

“there is a wealth of research evidence that the everyday practice of assessment in classrooms is beset with problems and short-comings.”
(Black & Williams 1998: 5)

One of the problems was with effective teaching where emphasise was on quantity and presentation rather than quality. The second problem was the negative impact of marks. It was apparent that the final mark, rather than the process, was more important with cases of children being taught to the test in order that the results were high. The effect on underachievers was detrimental as they constantly could not achieve high results or, at the other end of the spectrum, the process becomes a competition with peers rather than personal improvement. The third concern was the managerial role where the collection of marks was more important than the analysis of the results. This style of assessing was summed up

‘Classroom assessment has become disconnected from learning. For many teachers, it is mainly about measurement through paper and pencil tests, administered by the teacher after leaning has taken place with the aim of assigning a pupil to an appropriate level or grade.’
(Smith I 2004: 8)

This style of assessment is very much a tick sheet that looks at results and presentation but is not concerned with the process and how to improve teaching and learning for the children. How many times has assessment taking place at the end of term or the end of a unit and no change to teaching has taken place or mis-understandings addressed because it is time to move on to the next concepts or topic? How can plans be changed when the assessment is only giving a snapshot of what the children know at that time resulting in children being labelled as low achievers? These styles of assessment that encourage rote and superficial learning focus on comparative results that can communicate failure rather than supporting progress where:

“Low achievers become overwhelmed by assessments and de-motivated by constant evidence of their low achievement.”
(ARG 2002: 4)