Journeying Beyond Models and Typologies: a Constructivist View of Classroom Assessment

Winifred M. Burke, Open University

Journeying Beyond Models and Typologies: A Constructivist View of Classroom Assessment For Learning

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Cardiff University, September 7-10 2000

Abstract

This paper is based on a recently completed doctoral study [2000], which is concerned with formative assessment for learning. This case study explores the relationship between teaching, learning and assessment, as observed in a Year four and Year six classroom in two English primary schools in 1999. The two schools concerned are both successful in terms of national league tables, recent OFSTED reports and parental satisfaction [they are both over-subscribed]. Taking note of what Black and Wiliam [1998] have written about there being few studies of formative assessment with ecological validity [carried out in the normal classroom], these two schools were carefully selected to determine whether success in terms of performance was synonymous with good practice in terms of formative assessment for learning. Drawing on a socio-cultural view of formative assessment for learning [Vygotsky, 1978, Bruner, 1986] this research uses models and typologies, developed by others [Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975, Tunstall and Gipps, 1996b and Torrance and Pryor, 1998] in order to establish and analyse the pattern of formative assessment activity which is visible in both classrooms, before using ‘thick description’ [Denzin, 1989,83] to gain greater understanding of the facilitating and inhibiting factors which lurk beneath the surface and influence that practice.

Background and Rationale

Black [1995] writes that most of the investment in assessment, whether in practical operations or in research and development, has been devoted to certification and accountability, to the neglect of the formative. This, arguably, is because government, tax payers and parents want to know how the education system is performing, and the results of assessment are also being used as market forces to aid parental choice and promote competition between schools [Murphy 1990]. Central government, however, have been less willing, to invest in training teachers, or the funding of qualitative research in formative assessment. This may be because the process has been found to be costly and time-consuming. Wignall compares people who control change to ‘gatekeepers’. It would seem that, as ‘gatekeepers’, governments in this country have biased the system they control by perpetuating a systems- rationalist view of assessment [Wignall, 1998, 311]. This was prevalent prior to 1988, and in more recent years has been reinforced by the National Assessment Policy. It is suggested, after reading the relevant literature, that ‘gatekeepers,’ espousing a blind belief in the scientific validity and reliability of assessment data per se, still exist at all levels in the education service and may be blocking understanding of formative assessment in schools.

Those who adhere to a systems- rationalist view of assessment, accept an ordered and predictable reality which can be objectively studied and systematically improved [Fullan, 1991]. These scholars explore a world they view in terms of cause and effect, a world they contend is shaped by factors they can identify, manipulate and control. Systems-rationalists presume that a desired state can be objectively identified and described, and that some state of [near] perfection can ultimately be reached through logic and rationality. In their view researchers should and do remain objective and unbiased; they stand apart from the reality they investigate. Systems-rationalist researchers claim to dissect the reality they investigate, to reconstruct that reality and by so doing identify causal links and thereby develop universally applicable laws. As Greenfield explains of systems-rationalism; according to this perspective

‘facts stand separate and independent from theories about facts.....it is possible to explain facts by theories and thereby gain control of them [1993b, 94].

Thus systems-rationalists tend to work with clearly defined problems and to offer specific and prescriptive solutions to those problems.

A different approach to assessment inquiry is that which is described by the phrase subjectivist- interpretivist [Carnahan, 1995]and is the one which informs this study. It is used to describe a perspective which acknowledges the world as constructed reality; in other words, a product of human action and interaction, and of the meanings that social actors attach to their experiences [Van Manen, 1992]. For subjectivist-interpretivists

‘the social world [is] not....a world of causes and effects but...a world of meanings that must constantly be negotiated and renegotiated’ [Donmoyer,1995, 5].

From this perspective, then, reality is value-laden rather than factual [Greenfield, 1986].As Greenfield points out, although facts and values are conceptually distinct, those who research assessment encounter

‘a world in which facts and values are inevitably and intimately intertwined’ [Greenfield,1993d, 181].

According to this line of reasoning the selection process through which humans choose to focus on particular facts and discount others, the interpretations that people place on their self-selected facts and the meaning that they construct around these facts preclude the possibility of so-called scientific objectivity in assessment research. These ideas are more in line with attempts to develop a constructivist approach to assessment [Wood, 1986].

Theorists espousing subjectivist-interpretivist ideas contend that real-life situations are not clearly defined; rather that they are part of human experience which is characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, paradox and dilemma. They maintain that individuals may experience specific events quite differently, at any one time, and the same individual could attribute different meanings from one time to another. From this perspective, school organizations are human inventions: ‘they are simply manifestations of mind and will’ [Greenfield,1993b, 92].It is true that schools rarely offer real life situations, rather they expose pupils to problems with already defined solutions, for which the teacher as the ‘gatekeeper’ [Wignall, 1988, 311], in his/her classroom, holds the key. Ultimately in terms of formative assessment for learning, however, it is the pupil as ‘gatekeeper’ who holds the final key in this argument because only he/she can learn from what has been provided. It is this idiosyncratic aspect of schooling, which makes it even more important for the researcher to study the context within which formative assessment and learning take place.

Thus in choosing to explore the social world of the school, subjectivist-interpretivist theorists adopt methods and approaches intended to encompass both the complexities of the human condition and the values that underlie human actions, whilst trying to capture the multiple meanings that individuals attach to their experiences. From this perspective, then, assessment research will seldom lead directly to exemplary solutions of human problems; subjectivist-interpretivist research and theory can, however, illuminate what individuals do and why they do it [Greenfield, 1993e].

Research Design and Analytical Framework

In this exploratory two-site case study the question raised was ‘what does formative assessment look like in the primary classroom?’ There are two strands to formative assessment, that which informs teacher planning and that, which feeds directly into pupils’ learning.The focus here is on pupils’ learning. Within this main question important aspects of formative assessment such as teacher feedback to pupils, pupils’ reaction to feedback, peer and self-assessment were also included. The study is set within the English curriculum delivery [although this is just a vehicle and not the focus]in a Year four and Year six classroom, in two different schools. The eight hours of observation were carefully chosen to avoid external testing. A sample of pupils are studied and interviewed in each classroom, representing gender and attainment levels [ not pupils with identified special educational needs].

An observation schedule was devised and is used by a non-participant observer. Semi-structured interviews were carried out before the study began and as soon after each observation as possible with both teachers and the sample of pupils, using a bank of previously prepared questions. The timing of the interviews was to avoid memory loss. Teacher questions cover theoretical beliefs, attitudes and strategies related to formative assessment practice. Pupil questions cover attitudes and perceptions as they relate to home and school activities, their teacher, peers and themselves. All audiotapes were transcribed in full and the transcripts shared with teachers as one means of establishing the validity of the data collected.

Two forms of data management and analysis are used. The first to count activities observed, using various models and typologies [Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975, Tunstall and Gipps, 1996b and Torrance and Pryor, 1998] and turn these numbers into percentages. This is done in order to determine the pattern of formative assessment activities present in both classrooms. The second is to divide the transcripts into assessment episodes and analyse these qualitatively, relating what was observed back into the literature. Triangulation is aimed for by using more than one instrument, by regularly consulting the social actors concerned and by constantly relating the formative assessment practice studied back to the national picture through my inspection work.

Status of Formative Assessment

Formative assessment is so visible in classrooms, involving teachers in observing and questioning pupils about their work, that it could easily be assumed that the activities were having the desired impact on pupils’ learning, when the reality is much less clear. In this study problems were found to exist at the level of communication, unequal power relationships, curriculum delivery and pupil attitudes and motivation.

Year Four Classroom

The class teacher Mrs. Fleur is in mid career. She combines bringing up a family with teaching. She teaches for four days per week and job shares her class with another teacher on the other day. She is the Key Stage 2 coordinator. She has a classroom assistant for one session each morning. Mrs. Fleur works in a modern building where fear of disturbing nearby classes leads her to limit talking for her thirty-two pupils. Mrs. Fleur said

‘The delivery of the curriculum is I think a huge influence on our practice at the moment…you know the pressure of getting this literacy hour [1998] in place.’

She continued

‘We do much more summative assessment than we do formative [as a school ] although we do talk about opportunities....we share ideas for strategies’ [interview, 26th May 1999]

Mrs. Fleur is teaching literacy, poetry and creative writing during the period of observation. The following table records the pattern and frequency of Mrs. Fleur’s formative assessment practice during three hours of observation.

Formative Assessment Practice; Year Four Classroom

Mrs. Fleur appears to be largely operating within the small steps of learning during these sessions by checking on what the pupils know and understand. She involves pupils in order to gain understanding of how the pupils’ perceive the task and whether they are clear what they should do next, but the balance of her practice is located in her questioning and exploratory mode rather than in dialogue with pupils. She isn’t punitive or given to handing out rewards in the way of stickers or stamps in these sessions, but neither does she share longer term goals with her pupils.

Feedback

Mrs. Fleur said of her feedback to pupils.

‘it might be done in a plenary….as the children are working I would go and sit and talk through their writing and I would make suggestions to them...when I mark work....your next step…setting them something they can aim for’[26th May, 1999 ].

Of her pupils’ feedback to her on her written comments, she indicated that this is minimal and put it down to

‘I don’t think I’ve got them well enough trained yet….they do read my comments but to actually put the two things together when it’s a week since they wrote it…they possibly can’t remember’ [ 26th May, 1999].

Recognizing that there could be a potential match/mismatch between what the teacher perceives her feedback is like and what actually happens, both sets of figures were processed.

Year 4 Teacher’s Perception of, and Actual Feedback

% Practice April/May,1999

[Tunstall and Gipps, 1996b, 395]

The closest match between the teacher’s perception of how she used feedback to her pupils and her practice, is in her social and evaluative feedback. Mrs. Fleur’s perception of the balance between the short-term goals shared with pupils and the longer-term strategies is more evenly balanced than occurred in her practice. Her emphasis in her feedback appears to be in establishing classroom values as well as on specifying attainment and improving performance.

Assessment Episode

The following incident occurred at the end of a literacy lesson. The class was clearing away their books ready to attend assembly, when one boy chose to share his excitement over his perceived success with the way he had handled his punctuation exercise. His teacher, however, was concerned that the class would be late for assembly and whilst what happened is understandable, it nevertheless highlights the tension which exists for the individual in a social setting where priority is given to curriculum delivery and where individual differences are often ignored.

Year Four Pupil Initiated Assessment Incident

Joel: [excitedly] I got to number 4

Mrs. Fleur: [looking around] can you please make sure your trays are neat and tidy and then put it away

Joel: [persistently] I got to number 4

Mrs. Fleur: [spotting two girls who were dawdling] can you put them in there now [pointing to drawer stand]

Joel: on our worksheet …it was really hard

Mrs. Fleur: [turning to Joel for the first time] you need to concentrate don’t you?

Joel: [agreeing] yes…I was at number 4….I was going..and stopping at the punctuation

Mrs. Fleur: and what do you have to remember?..especially to use a capital

Joel: letter

Mrs. Fleur: I for the person don’t you? Because that’s one of your demon things isn’t it?

Joel: yes [walking away to put his book in his tray before joining the line of other children for assembly. [13th April, 1999]

Key ………. Pause

This is a very small incident, which could so easily be overlooked. When Mrs. Fleur read this transcript, she could only remember hearing the word ‘hard’ and nothing else. It is almost as though a teacher in these circumstances operates at both a conscious and an automatic level. She clearly carried a lot of information about Joel in her head at the time, as is evident in the interchange, although as the name was altered in the transcript [Joel was not one of the sample of pupils] she could not locate who it might have been afterwards. This is a weakness in her system, because she has no detailed ongoing records of formative assessment.

One can only speculate as to the effect of such an incident on Joel’s mind set; some might dismiss the incident as purely part of the hard knocks which will be encountered through life, and which as such are a valuable part of the learning process. An alternative interpretation, however, would be that changing a pupil’s learning goal to a performance goal is not good practice. Joel was excited, he showed his awareness of what would catch his teacher’s attention, he demonstrated his understanding of self-checking procedures and yet he found himself being cued to give an answer and confronted by the personal demon which he had begun by thinking he was starting to overcome.