Assessment for Learning

Abstract

This article discusses the educational practice known as assessment for learning. Assessment for learning is a revolutionary approach to presenting material, repurposing the classroom into an interactive dynamic in which teacher and students are both engaged in the process of mastering the new material and evaluating that learning process (Assessment for Learning, 2002). Students, because they are asked to review each step of the learning process as the material is being presented, not only learn the material for the unit but also become far more familiar with how the process of learning is undertaken and specifically how they learn.

Overview

One of the most complex and thoroughly researched dynamics in education is how best to monitor what students are learning even as classroom instruction is ongoing. Traditionally the operative question in education was how to present material, that is, how to teach. After the post-World War II boom in education both in America and in Europe, education research worked to develop pedagogical models. These models of instruction have been widely impacted by the steady increase in use and application of computer technology in the area of classroom presentation.

The emphasis has been on how to teach and on developing theories that covered classroom style, instructor function, and delivery. Education itself, whether science or math, history or English, was measured by the unit of study, as a teacher would build on material from the beginning of a semester through the end, thus educating students in a tight, linear sequence. Traditional education process was defined by units in which new material would be presented, including competencies, skills, or information the students would be expected to master during the unit; a pre-structured period of a designated number of classes that would typically involve a variety of theory-driven pedagogical strategies, including lecture, notetaking, textbook resourcing, in-class audio-visual and/or technology programming, and/or small group or class discussion to introduce and review the material; and some type of end-of-unit summative evaluation, most often an examination that would, theoretically, provide the student and the teacher a measure of the success of that unit's presentation. Inevitably lower achieving students would struggle to maintain interest as such summative evaluations inevitably left them feeling less associated with the class. Students unable to perform adequately on end-of-unit evaluations lost motivation in education across not only the semester but also the formative years of their education, resulting in an increasing sense of helplessness, minimization of effort put into learning, and the feeling of defined by the stigma of low achiever.

In the mid-1980s and 1990s, the influence of video games, cable television, and the Internet expanded and student achievement as reflected in scores on state-mandated standardized tests and college entrance examinations fell. Educators began to examine different models for approaching a classroom, including looking for a more effective way to engage a student in the process of learning rather than relegating them to the passive position of being consumers of material? As education research investigated the phenomena of students who not only lacked mastery of the basic elements of the field of study (for instance, multiplication problems or sentence construction) but also were entirely perplexed by how the mind learns. These children were made into temporary students—not lifelong learners. Schools were rigid environments in which information was delivered one way and evaluation was inevitable and often discouraging. That experience existed entirely within the artificial confines of a classroom and entirely relied on the passive ingestion of material from an instructor.

Applications

Assessment for learning emerged as one promising answer. The word "for" is used in the sense of "in support of"—the theory centers on developing a classroom through constant feedback, constant assessments on the part of both the instructor and the students. Education was reconceived as a process, imperfect and often ad-libbed, not a product-oriented, step-by-step linear sequence. Evaluation of student achievement relied not only on summative reviews at the end of a unit but on daily feedback gathered from students as the unit progressed. As the teacher monitored that day-to-day engagement, changes could be implemented as gaps in understanding became evident. Teachers worked together with students, and the classroom became a working environment, a kind of closed circuit of sharing and directed conversation.

The theoretical paradigm introduced new responsibilities and new challenges for both the student and the teacher. The model of assessment for learning actually redesigned both traditional elements of the education dynamic. Students were expected to work with their own progress in a unit, monitor their own mastery of the elements and competencies of the unit, and participate actively in raising questions or getting assistance. "Active learning" meant that students could no longer coast or drift indifferently through a unit until the closing evaluation—whether a lab report or an essay or a research paper or a presentation or an exam. Instead, students would be engaged in each class, whether working individually or in groups or as a class, and expected to draw on material in class (for example, effective models of student work, ineffective models of student work, problem examples, videos of instructional work) to track their own understanding.

Teachers, for their part, do far more interactive work than they had done in the traditional model, using a variety of feedback methods to monitor how effectively the material is registering. These methods include daily classroom observation; "learning conversations," before or after class periods, in which the material and the class workflow can be discussed with students openly and without judgment; conferences; structured end-of-class questionnaires; drafts of ongoing project work; and self-evaluations completed by students at the direction of the teacher. Emphasis is placed on the non-judgmental nature of the dynamic—students must be able to speak openly and frankly about class operations and presentations and teachers must regard gaps in student understanding not as a personal failure or a personal criticism but rather as a suggestion, like getting directions during a long journey. Teachers must be willing to re-engage classroom rubrics, strategies, and activities on a daily basis as a way to respond to any uncertainties or misdirections.

Under this model of education, the emphasis is placed on the learning process itself—the evaluation at the end of the unit merely confirms that dynamic. Both student and teacher feel validated, part of the same give and take, sharing the goal of understanding material in a wholly constructive and jointly undertaken process. "[Assessments for learning]'s purpose is to improve learning, rather than simply to assess whether the learners have mastered the learning objectives." (Fulcher, 2010)

Viewpoints

The benefits of learning for assessment center on the cooperative nature of education. Instruction becomes a series of decisions, with each class and each unit responding to its own organic reality. All activity—hands-on tutorial instruction and technology-based class instruction, lecture and note-taking, workshops and group handouts—depends on constant assessing of how the education process itself is working. Advocates of the model point out that education is redefined as a linked process as students move through competencies in a clear narrative. The road toward education is termed a progression of competence.

The instructor at the beginning of the unit must first establish where the class is in terms of the overall material that is to be covered. By grounding objectives in where the class is, the process moving forward becomes realistic and particular. In essence, the unit begins by asking what comes next, where is the class in its journey toward the mastery of a body of material and/or skills. Teachers respond to evidence gathered from the students; students provide evaluation and responses so that together teacher and students set the goals. As the mission statement for the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in the United Kingdom defined in 2007, "Keeping the focus on the learning intention, talking to the students about their progress towards it, and getting them to talk about their progress…brings the student inside the learning process." That stage, known as diagnostic assessment, is entirely non-judgmental; there are no examinations, no points earned, no punitive consequences for revealing a level of understanding. Instructors then use that information to set up the unit processes.

The unit is conducted with what are termed formative assessments—that is, the day-to-day exercises and activities that permit both students and teacher to assess where there may be gaps in understanding and where the material is clear. This stage, because it is conducted as the learning process is ongoing, allows helpful redirection, directed intervention, and constructive dialogue between teacher and student. Of course, in this model, each unit necessarily closes with some sort of summative assessment—for example, a presentation, a paper, or an examination—but that performance is now placed within a helpful and constructive context that provides students with specific direction and, in turn, encouragement as it demystifies the process of learning itself. Students, because they are expected and permitted to take a hands-on approach to their own education, feel empowered, grades are no longer passively received, nor are such evaluative marks considered the end-all of education. Students are gifted with a wider perspective on both education and themselves. They can monitor their own progress, understand how they acquire information, and can feel motivated to improve that process.

There are drawbacks, of course. It is labor intensive education. Assessment for learning involves teachers not relying on pre-drawn class schedules and outlines. Teachers often face a daunting teaching assignment that involves five or six classes a day, each with upwards of twenty-five students, and must approach classroom instruction as a daily feedback and response dynamic, which puts enormous pressure on class preparation. An instructor cannot prepare a semester's worth of lesson plans and move through the material. The actual course material, however, does not change; "what changes is how that teacher presents the work and how the assessment dimensions of the work is structured" (National Council, 2005). Education is no longer about goals or standards or results—it is about how to get there, and that dynamic brings additional responsibilities to teachers, who may already feel underappreciated and underpaid.

In addition, assessment for learning works best when classes are relatively small, allowing students to feel part of the group without the often intimating feel of a large classroom. Because assessment for learning approaches each class as a unique construct with unique dynamics, the made-to-order instructional protocol can be severely challenged when the number of students is large. With large classes, teachers have to group competencies and skills, and that risks the very mission of assessment for learning. Small classes are increasingly rare, however, as funding-challenged school systems work to provide education while minimizing staff.

Assessment for learning relies on student initiative. Students must be prepared to be engaged in every class, to take responsibility for their own approach to mastering material, and must feel confident in expressing concerns about any issues in the information exchange that goes on in the classroom. They must be willing to engage the classroom every day or misunderstood material quickly assumes dimensions that only increase frustration and eventually engenders indifference.

Assessment for learning relies on communication, honest and direct—which can be difficult in a classroom situation where students can easily feel intimidated by the presumed power of the teacher to assign grades. Teachers, in turn, can feel intimidated by the sheer size and the demand of the students. Finally, whereas less gifted students can feel amply rewarded by the assessment for learning approach as their particular needs and uncertainties are discussed and worked through, higher achieving students, because the education model hinges on addressing what students do not grasp, may be left unchallenged, unmotivated, and feeling indifferent simply because they do grasp the material.

Assessment for learning is an attractive theory that can be applied to a limited degree in virtually every classroom from kindergarten to college. Because it assumes that a student is interested in learning about learning itself and because it assumes a context wider than any single class, assessment for learning offers a student (and an instructor) the opportunity to grow together and to make each class a new and unique educational forum. Ultimately, a student who has developed a keen awareness of his or her own learning process can approach any class, any job, indeed any problem or challenge in life more confidently and competently.

More than labeling students with marks and scores, assessment learning gives students what Rick Stiggins, one of the most prominent architects of assessment learning, termed a "rich description" of the state of the student's achievement (2006). By committing education, whatever the field or discipline, to the process of learning itself, the classroom becomes part of what will inevitably be a lifelong journey. Journey has emerged as a dominant metaphor for this system of education. ("The Journey," 2014) Assessment for learning offers a way to create an ever-changing environment in which learning—not teaching—is the critical goal.

Terms & Concepts

Active learning: A model for the education process that places specific responsibilities on the learner to actively participate in the classroom enterprise rather than rely on listening and taking notes.

Diagnostic assessment: The initial phase of a unit of instruction in which the instructor and the students collectively determine the level of knowledge or skills possessed by that classroom before setting goals and competencies for the unit.

Formative assessment: The ongoing give and take evaluation of the success of material presentation during a unit in which both students and teacher work together to redirect critical attention to ensure the widest possible level of understanding.

Learning conversation: A dialogue conducted between an instructor and a student or group of students that is specifically targeted to provide feedback, to clarify class goals and/or unit initiatives as a way to guide the instructional decisions a teacher will make.

Progression of competence: The theory that education is not confined to a single class or to a single semester or academic year, that a student within an education system embarks on an extensive journey toward mastering a wide body of knowledge and/or skills and that each class, each year is part of a coordinated movement toward that sense of understanding.

Rubric: A guiding protocol of expected competencies in a particular unit used to measure student achievement in that unit.

Summative assessment: The closing phase of a unit in which students are asked to present some work that would adequately reveal the competencies mastered in that unit, such as an examination, a presentation, a report, or a paper.

Bibliography

Assessment for Learning. (2002). Retrieved December 25, 2014 from www.assessmentforlearning.edu.au

Fulcher, Glenn. (2010). Assessment for learning I: An introduction. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://languagetesting.info/features/afl/formative.html

The journey to excellence: Assessments in the classroom. (2012). Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.journeytoexcellence.org.uk/resourcesandcpd/research/summaries/rsassessment.asp

Lam, R. (2016). Assessment as learning: examining a cycle of teaching, learning, and assessment of writing in the portfolio-based classroom. Studies In Higher Education, 41(11), 1900–1917. Retrieved December 8, 2016 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=118867399&site=ehost-live&scope=site

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2005). Assessment for learning. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/JuniorCycleReview/Aflleaflet2.pdf

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2007). Assessment: Talking about learning. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/assessment%5Ffor%5Flearning/apr07%5Fassessment%5Ffor%5Flearning.pdf

Preston, C. (2010). 40 alternative assessment ideas for learning. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://www.teachhub.com/40-alternative-assessments-learning

Stiggins, R. (2006). Assessment for learning: A key to motivation and achievement. Edge, 2(2). Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://ati.pearson.com/downloads/edgev2n2%5F0.pdf

Suggested Reading

Black, P., et al. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. London, UK: Open University Publishing.

Chappius, J., et al. (2011). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right—using it well. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dial, E. (2016). Assessment for learning: A practical approach for the classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Isabwe, G. N., Reichert, F., Carlsen, M., & Lian, T. A. (2014). Using assessment for learning mathematics with mobile tablet based solutions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(2), 29–36. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=95409917&site=ehost-live

Kearney, S. P., & Perkins, T. (2014). Engaging students through assessment: The success and limitations of the ASPAL (authentic self and peer assessment for learning) model. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 11(3), 1–14. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=100358794&site=ehost-live

Popham, W. J. (2013). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.