assignment 2: reflections on the impact of assessment in
TRANSCRIPT
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
1
Assignment 2: Reflections on the Impact of Assessment in the MFL Classroom
“Start from where your students are, not from where you would like them to be”
– Dylan Wiliam, 2020.
Well-thought-out learning objectives can enable students to make progress in
their learning of a foreign language, and to develop the capacity to own and
monitor their own progress as independent language users – the ultimate aim
of language learning – Jones & Wiliam, 2008:3.
Introduction Assessment is an essential component to teaching and learning in the Modern
Foreign Languages (MFL), or Foreign Languages (FL) classroom, regardless of
the approach to instruction (Knoch & Macqueen, 2017; Sartaj et al., 2019): it is
central to any successful language programme in terms of effectiveness,
whether the assessment is summative or formative (Ahmed et al., 2019; Sartaj
et al., 2019; Wiliam, 2011). There are many different types of assessment, such
as diagnostic, norm-referenced, and criterion-referenced. However, the focus of
this assignment will be the impact of formative and summative assessment on
students in the MFL classroom, with particular focus on formative assessment,
since it has been seen to be one of the most powerful ways to support student
learning (Wiliam, 2018).
When considering the impact of these types of assessment, I will be
investigating what formative assessment does that summative does not: how
summative is commonly seen as just having the role of accountability, rather
than to improve learning, and how formative offers potential benefits to learning
in the classroom (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Stiggins &
Chappuis, 2006; Wiliam, 2018). Reflecting this distinction, summative
assessment has been called ‘assessment of learning’, whilst formative
assessment is widely known as ‘Assessment for learning’ (AfL) (Estaji & Mirzaii,
2018; Pachler et al., 2014).
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
2
Inside of this, this assignment will be looking at teacher assessment, peer-
assessment, and self-assessment. This includes the importance of sharing the
learning objectives and success criteria. It is my greatest belief that the ultimate
goal of any teacher, especially in an MFL classroom, is to help students
become independent and self-regulated learners, and shared success criteria is
key to this endeavour, especially in influencing student motivation and
engagement (Clark, 2012; Gan et al., 2019; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005;
Stiggins & Chappuis, 2006).
Literature review
Assessment has the potential to enhance learning (Wiliam, 2011). To assess
the impact of assessment on students and their learning in this assignment, I
will be focusing on two types of assessment: summative and formative. To fully
assess the impact of assessment, this assignment also needs to focus on the
learner’s responses to the feedback (Wiliam, 2011). This importance has
featured in the literature in how value is given to how assessment can
contribute to motivating or engaging students (Gan et al., 2019; McTighe &
O’Connor, 2005; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2006), which is an important aspect of
the impact of assessment.
Due to the limitations of this work, I will not be focusing on some other forms of
assessment: norm-referenced, criterion-referenced or diagnostic assessment.
Though diagnostic assessment received increased research interest in the early
2000s, diagnostic procedures have been inadequately theorised, classroom-
based research in second and FL is surprisingly rare, and there is little
agreement on what diagnosis really means in an MFL classroom (Alderson et
al., 2015; Knoch & Macqueen, 2017).
Formative and summative assessment are different types of assessment only
because they have different uses (Pachler et al., 2014). For example, if a
reading task with multiple-choice answers is an example of formative
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
3
assessment, it assesses the progress towards a product, and the teacher uses
the results of the task to move the learning forward, redesigning a follow-up
task, or lesson. If this task were an example of summative assessment, it would
assess the product, at the end of the learning period, where the mark reflects
the pupils’ overall progress made (Chandio & Jafferi, 2015; Pachler et al.,
2014).
Language teaching in the MFL classroom benefits from both summative and
formative qualitative feedback of various types, which include teacher
assessment, peer-assessment, and self-assessment (Knoch & Macqueen,
2017; Wiliam, 2018). Assessment in instruction is critical, but it is the case that
both teachers and learners, as well as peers, need to get actively involved in
the assessment process (Azarnoosh, 2013; Wiliam, 2018). These roles are
important for classrooms in general, but the MFL classroom is no exception
(Jones & Wiliam, 2008).
Summative assessment
Summative assessment – also known as high stakes testing – produces a
grade or score that is reported to education leaders, is used to allow entrance to
a class, or a university, and therefore commands the attention of students
because their results typically ‘count’, appearing on report cards, transcripts and
certificates (McAlpine, 2002; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). Summative
assessment comes at the end of a unit, a term, a year, or a course, and
provides information about how much a learner has progressed, and how well
the course has worked, normally for purposes of accountability (Agcam &
Babnoglu, 2016; Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; McAlpine, 2002; Pachler et al., 2014).
However, by itself, summative assessment is an insufficient tool to make the
most of learning, especially since the end of a teaching period is too late to see
what students have learnt in order to improve the teaching (McTighe &
O’Connor, 2005). Though not directly helpful in improving learning, it is useful
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
4
for the succinct communication of student abilities to external interest parties,
who make decisions based on grades (McAlpine, 2002).
Stress and anxiety, which is particularly problematic in language learning, is a
disadvantage of summative assessment, especially if students get a low mark:
when students are given their mark, it is received like a final blow, with no
indication for what direction to take in follow-up study (Ahmed et al., 2019;
Chandio & Jafferi, 2015; Tang, 2016). There is typically little time given for
students to reflect on the learning process for future improvement possibilities
and the students are unable to take any command of the learning process
(Ahmed et al., 2019; Chandio & Jafferi, 2015; Tang, 2016). Additionally, issues
of content validity have been reported, suggesting that there can be failure in
measuring the desired skills adequately – especially if the tests merely assess
cramming techniques (Chandio & Jafferi, 2015).
With summative assessment, teachers struggle to calculate how far their
teaching strategies were successful, and where they need to change strategy
(Sartaj et al., 2019). In a Pakistani study, teachers showed dissatisfaction with
the assessment system, considering the educational system to be responsible
for the poor results of students (Sartaj et al., 2019). They believed pupils are
judged on information that reflects their ability to cram information, and,
therefore, not very useful for communicating further data about individual
student abilities (Sartaj et al., 2019; McAlpine, 2002).
Formative assessment, on the other hand, is done during the learning process,
and the results are used to feed directly back into the teaching and learning
process, providing continuous timely feedback to the learners, and in this way
scaffolding support for any learning deficiencies (Chandio & Jafferi, 2015;
Pachler et al., 2014; Wiliam, 2011). Unlike summative assessment, formative
assessment is widely considered and endorsed as an important instrument in
the enhancement of student learning and achievement (Black et al., 2004; Estaji
& Mirzaii, 2018; Jones & Wiliam, 2008; Leenknecht & Prins, 2018; Wiliam,
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
5
2011). It includes a variety of both teacher-led formal and informal methods,
such as ungraded quizzes, spoken questioning, teacher observations, and
think-alouds (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). To be effective, these instructional
adjustments need to be over a short time scale: the information collected and
the feedback given from one minute or day to the next is better than that which
is given from one week or month to the next (Wiliam, 2018; Wiliam & Leahy,
2015). Such short scale assessment feedback reflects its interactive nature,
which improves pupil engagement (Azarnoosh, 2013).
Background
Formative assessment is strongly supported by current international educational
research and policy: it is clear that it makes for effective instruction (Estaji &
Mirzaii, 2018; Wiliam, 2011; Gan et al, 2019; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2006) – but,
to what degree, and how? Beginning in the late 1980s, research on formative
assessment declared it as being one of the most powerful ways to improve
student engagement and achievement (Ahmed et al., 2019; Jones & Wiliam,
2008). The Formative Assessment Research Group at King’s College London
worked with many local authorities to explore how the findings could be used in
real classrooms, of various subjects, and later finding that the formative
assessment principles worked just as well in MFL classrooms (Jones & Wiliam,
2008).
Formative assessment informs learners of their strengths and weaknesses,
reduces uncertainty, and, in this way, may motivate them to study more
purposefully (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018). It has been found to be useful in helping
students to learn and recall vocabulary, as well as other aspects of language
learning, such as grammar and pronunciation (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018).
Furthermore, it motivates students, who were seen to have a positive attitude
towards formative assessment (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; Gan et al., 2019;
McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Wiliam, 2011). This could be due to how it
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
6
alleviates fear and anxiety in speaking, and in tests (Chandio & Jafferi 2015;
Sanaeifar & Nafari, 2018; Tang, 2016).
However, there have been concerns over the effectiveness of formative
assessment in improving learning due to perceived constraints: teachers do not
share practice or believe in it enough, meaning the potential is not fully realised,
which can lead to anxiety – even though the opposite has also been claimed
(see above) (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; Sanaeifar & Nafari, 2018). This could be
due to the extra work needed in ensuring the alternative modes of assessment
are effective, a task that requires some skill and patience for the teacher
(Chandio & Jafferi, 2015).
Teacher assessment
To assess students’ learning or knowledge, educators need to use a variety of
assessment methods; however, in traditional classroom settings, the teacher
has tended to be the main assessor (Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 2000; Pope,
2005, in Matsuno, 2009). Teacher assessment has traditionally been seen as
the main form of assessment in the classroom, with teachers playing a major
role, and studies have revealed that students think the same: that assessment
is not only obligatory, but always done by teachers, and that they do not have a
say in it (Agcam & Babanoglu, 2016; Azarnoosh, 2013). This lack of voice in the
process appears especially damaging for pupils since teacher assessment
feedback gains consistently low satisfaction scores in national surveys of
student satisfaction, with concern around the quality and effectiveness of it, as
well as how timely it is (Hill & West, 2020).
Teacher assessment includes: effective questioning; the sharing of learning
intentions and success criteria; and the designing and setting up of various
classroom activities that elicit evidence of learning, and offer opportunity for
feedback to be given that moves learners forward (Jones & Wiliam, 2008;
Wiliam, 2018). The teacher is able to use questioning to assess progress of
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
7
students during lessons, and, importantly, by selecting students at random from
the whole class, the level of engagement increases, and the teacher has a
greater breadth of information about the class’s progress (Jones & Wiliam,
2008). Questioning is essential in underpinning good language teaching: it
starts a dialogue with the students and gives them a voice (Jones & Wiliam,
2008). However, questioning needs to be designed thoughtfully to offer
cognitive challenge and time to think, otherwise students “are unlikely to take
MFL seriously” (Jones & Swarbrick, 2004, in Jones & Wiliam, 2008:8).
Pupil assessment
Pupil assessment, involving peer and self-assessment, offers pupils a voice
since the pupils become assessors in the language learning process. Peer-
assessment involves students being activated as learning resources for one
another, providing feedback to other learners, as well as receiving feedback
themselves (Pachler et al., 2014; Wiliam 2018). Self-assessment involves
students being activated as owners of their own learning, typically based on a
clearly-defined task with clear assessment criteria, sometimes derived from
learners’ input (Léger, 2009; Leeknecht & Prins, 2018; Wiliam, 2018).
In recent decades, with a growing emphasis on a learner-centred curriculum,
pupil peer and self-assessment became of particular interest in educational
research (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015). The positive effect on learning across
empirical studies, led to, in the last thirty years, an increasing use of peer-
assessment in the classroom, and also self-assessment (Azarnoosh, 2013;
Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015; Léger, 2009; Li et al., 2020). Peer-assessment has a
promising impact on language learning because it promotes ownership,
personal responsibility, and motivation: it is helpful, yet also challenging, and
enjoyable (Azarnoosh, 2013; Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015). Self-assessment is also
motivating for students, who are able to directly observe their own improvement,
and are thus more likely to display long-term motivation and then persist in the
face of difficulty (Gan et al, 2019).
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
8
Most commonly used in second language learning classrooms for writing,
students provide feedback to their peers on a range of task types, including
written and oral skills (Knoch & Macqueen, 2017; Matsuno, 2009). Through the
task of commenting on their own or their peers’ work, students develop critical
judgement, which, in turn, improves the quality of their work, even when later
produced independently (Jones & Wiliam, 2008). Observing the performance of
others raises awareness of performance criteria, increases reflection, and
empowers students to guide their own learning: this develops the skill of
generalising to new situations, which in turn promotes self-assessment, and
aids in the development of meta-cognitive self-awareness, which in turn
develops self-regulated learners who are able to monitor their efforts in line with
their goals (Azarnoosh, 2013; Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015; Gan et al., 2019; Léger,
2009; Leeknecht & Prins, 2018; Yan, 2020).
Importantly here, students are more involved, and the assessment is
individualised and interactive, which leads to greater satisfaction for the
students (Azarnoosh, 2013; Matsuno, 2009). It is critical that the students
believe they can successfully learn: when this happens, the students are more
likely to be motivated and make enough effort for the task (McTighe and
O’Connor, 2005). Furthermore, with self-assessment, with shared learning
intentions and assessor responsibility, students feel more important and
empowered, and so are less likely to feel anxious in the learning process and
give up on the language learning quest, which is important on the journey to
becoming an independent language learner (Léger, 2009).
However, some teachers have doubts about its accuracy, and whether the
students are able to assess themselves correctly (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015;
Matsuno, 2009). In Matsuno’s study (2009), though at least consistent, peer-
raters were more generous to their peers, and in self-assessment, self-raters,
especially high-achieving writers, were too critical towards themselves. This
could be due to a reaction to a friendship bias, or a lack of it, if the students lack
trust, or feel threatened by the task, unnerved by the subjectivity of their roles
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
9
as assessor, perhaps preferring teacher feedback to having responsibility
(Azarnoosh, 2013; Knoch & Macqueen, 2017). Students also have doubts,
caused by lacking confidence in their own assessment ability, which leads to
low-quality peer-feedback (Leenkneckt & Prins, 2018; Saito, 2008). This
unreliability and subjectivity that threatens the validity of the assessment means
that teachers often use peer-assessment for only developmental purposes
(Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015).
Furthermore, the benefits of peer-assessment cannot be guaranteed if the
students are incapable of implementing the assessment, for example, if they
find a scoring system difficult to use (Leekneckt & Prins, 2018; Saito, 2008).
Students need to be taught the language of assessment as well as how to do
peer-assessment in order for it to be effective, which is time-consuming, but
would otherwise result in incorrect feedback (Knoch & Macqueen, 2017; Saito,
2008). For some students, this might not be enough, particularly for weak ability
students (Gan et al., 2019).
It is clear that the step from a passive student receiving only teacher feedback
to a student taking the responsibility of being an assessor themselves is not
small, but it is worth considering for the possible benefits of working to develop
skilled self-regulated learners (Yan, 2020). Furthermore, although the
unreliability of pupil assessment limits some teachers to only using it for
developmental purposes, not even experienced teachers are always seen as
reliable markers, which would suggest that it would be unfair to discard pupil
assessment on the grounds of lacking reliability: the limitations of peer- and
self-assessment should not reduce the value these assessment types have to
language education (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015).
Classroom Practice
In the classroom (with myself implied when I write ‘the teacher’), I have seen
how assessment is used formatively to build progress in the learning of the
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
10
pupils, and how it is also used summatively to give information to teachers,
parents, and the leadership team. Formative assessment is in the hands of the
teacher to use to maximise learning, since summative assessment is often
externally produced – either by an exam board, in the GCSE exams, or
departmentally-controlled, in the end-of-unit and end-of-year exams.
Teacher assessment with self-assessment:
In my host school, the end-of-unit test is known as the ‘Green Pen Matters’, or
‘GPM’, and is done with the ‘Grammar Review’. Marked by the teacher, it
appears a type of summative teacher assessment, however the end-of-unit test
is designed to put the student at the centre of the process, with some self-
assessment. The test is marked as lightly as possible, using a code, and the
student is guided to correct their work, with the help of this code, and then to
map their progress onto their ‘progress ladder’, a booklet that contains many
such tables charting details of success and progress. This scaffolds the process
for the student to create targets for improvement, which becomes their focus for
the next term.
The students are obliged to interact with the feedback because they are asked
to respond to the code the teacher uses to mark in, in order to process and
learn from the feedback. After this, the students must fill in their perceived
progress in a table at the end of the test, colouring in the box that is relevant to
how they feel they have progressed, based their understanding of the content,
as well as a corresponding page in their ‘progress ladders’. As students fill
these in under guidance from the teacher, the summative assessment is an
effective blend of teacher and self-assessment.
Though these tests are summative, and therefore potentially demotivating, they
are used to maximise learning. The self-assessment task makes sure that the
students read, use and respond to the feedback, thus making it more effective
and having greater impact (Jones & Wiliam, 2008). The self-assessment task
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
11
improves student motivation and increases awareness of success criteria. The
progress ladder task at the end of the test reflects something of the “traffic-light
icons” task that is used to indicate familiarity with the skills or understanding that
is advantageous in the development of language learning, or, similar to the
“advance organising” task of Chamot and O’Malley in 1991 (in Jones & Wiliam,
2008:25). The summative assessment is used formatively because the teacher
and the students share in the planning of areas of difficulty to focus on, and as a
result, the students are activated as owners of their own learning (Jones &
Wiliam, 2008). With the students as owners of their own learning, they are one
step closer to becoming autonomous learners. Furthermore, this step is
repeated in every end-of-unit assessment, and so the students are accustomed
to the routine of this self-assessment task. This means the students can work
on developing this skill ready for the ultimate test, the externally-assessed
summative GCSEs, as part of the grand scheme of becoming self-regulated
independent language learners, even if they are weak ability students (Gan et
al., 2019).
Teacher assessment
Throughout the duration of class time, in different measure, reading, listening,
writing and speaking skills are assessed by the teacher through teacher-led
formative assessment, which forms a significant part of the learning process in
the classroom. The teacher cannot continue with the lesson without periodically
checking understanding. Assessment in the classroom is mainly formative
taking the form of: numerous ‘games’; testing grammar understanding, reading
skills, or listening skills; spoken questioning; teacher observations during tests
and activities, such as scaffolded translation and error correct worksheets; and
working thinking-out-loud (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). The teacher uses
information from all these tasks to examine student performance, see how
much progress has been made towards the lesson objectives, and then use this
to maximise learning by adapting follow-up tasks, in the same lesson, if
misconceptions are critical, or in the next, if more practice is needed (Agcam &
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
12
Babanoglu, 2016; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Wiliam and Leahy, 2015). The
formative assessment is essential, since without it I am unable to know what the
students have learnt: with numerous games, multiple-choice questions, and
quizzes, I am able to gauge many different gaps in understanding whilst
maintaining pupil engagement.
As part of this, the practice of asking questions to students at random is used to
monitor progress and has proven effective in increasing the level of
engagement of the whole class, as well as improving my awareness of student
progress (Jones & Wiliam, 2008). Furthermore, it does not inhibit my
differentiation in questioning, since I can still question differently, depending on
the student. Importantly, this technique not only means I can assess the
progress of a greater sample of pupils, it makes the students pay more
attention, in preparation for a random question. It is an effective tool for
engaging the whole class, which in turn is an effective tool for managing
behaviour, since all students know that they can be selected, and I am also able
to choose a student who is clearly not paying attention, as well as those who
are listening carefully.
However, it is still true that, though the teacher may have a greater sample of
information from the students, it is still not from everyone in the class. This is
often remedied in class with whole class formative assessment such as through
the use of mini-whiteboards, or multiple-choice questions displayed on the
board, with numbered options that are then matched up to students giving
answers with their fingers– on the cue of the teacher. When well-written, they
are excellent in assessing reading and listening skills (Smith & Conti, 2016).
Using mini-whiteboards with questioning simultaneously checks whole class
understanding and so is an indispensable AfL practice I will continue to utilise in
my teaching career.
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
13
Pupil assessment
The weekly vocabulary test is the most routine appearance of peer-assessment,
where the students are tested on their spellings of words in translation, and
when completed, the pupils are told to “intercambiad los cuadernos con tu
compañero” – to give their book to their partner to mark. The answers are put
on the board, but the pupils themselves are always the ones who are
scrutinising the answers and marking their partner’s work. I have the opportunity
to circulate and monitor the answers being written during the vocabulary test,
and see the speed at which students are able to recall learnt words, noticing
any common mistakes, and can then compare this with student feedback
afterwards. Whilst the vocabulary tests are being marked, students ask
questions about what is allowed, deemed acceptable, or to be ignored, when
marking the work. This critical skill is invaluable to them as they develop as
independent language learners, working in an objective fashion. It allows the
students to develop an eye for detail – to pay attention to important accents, for
which a mark can be lost if incorrectly placed – improving their own work and
progress, and very time-effectively. After the vocabulary test is marked, I can
see any correlations between marks, and can ask the students for feedback on
how they found the test, or where those marks could have been lost. For
example, one vocabulary test in a Year 7 class had produced a high number of
students with scores of 12 or 13 out of 15, so I asked the class what might
explain so many of the class losing just 2 or 3 marks, and they were very
quickly able to tell me that it was a confusion with the accents. This developing
awareness of their own skills in language aids in the development of
independent language learners, especially because it shows how the students
are able to talk about language: this is incredibly helpful for developing their
skills in understanding the “greatest possible range of strategies in their lifelong
language learning endeavours” (Jones & Wiliam, 2008:4).
Another less routine example of peer-assessment in my MFL classroom was a
peer-assessed writing and speaking task, in a Year 8 class. Though done
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
14
towards the end of a topic, it is an example of formative assessment: a paired
written task was set to review the language learnt, with the text performed at the
end of writing it. It was critical that extremely specific success criteria were
shared with the students when they were writing the text – they could then self-
assess whilst working towards the goal. Furthermore, I had done a task like this
before without specific success criteria, and it had led to havoc: students were
creative with language they did not know, meaning neither I nor they could see
what they had learnt in class. In this written task with clear success criteria on
the board, the students could not only consolidate their knowledge, they could
also develop their metacognitive awareness: they could be sure they knew what
they knew. Additionally, these criteria on the board could then be used for the
peer-assessment task, when the written work was performed to the rest of the
class. This experience made clear to me the importance of clearly-defined
success criteria in pupil assessment (Azarnoosh, 2013).
Self-assessment, with teacher support:
Students are regularly asked to “coged un boli verde” after a class activity – to
take a green pen – and it is the signal for the students to mark their own work. It
is true that it is not completely self-assessed, since there is guidance from the
teacher and the answers are shared by the teacher on the board and
discussed. However, teacher guidance does not take away from how the
benefits of this activity. The activity shares responsibility with the students as
they are asked to scrutinise their partners’ work, and compare that to the correct
answers. Furthermore, this blend of teacher assessment and self-assessment
offers an additional opportunity for the teacher to ask questions and collect
feedback from the students, empowering them to engage properly with their
self-assessment. Additionally, I am able to utilise peer-assessment here, when
a student gives an answer, by asking them: ‘why?’, or, depending on the ability
of the student, I might redirect the ‘why’ question to a student capable of
answering, or asking a peer to tell me if that answer was a good one. Both pupil
and teacher assessment has proven effective in lessons, especially when done
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
15
together, and regularly, however it is true that it is a practice that needs to be
ongoing, taught and supported, and done regularly.
Informal teacher assessment with self- and peer-assessment:
When thinking of the teacher producing effective formative assessment in the
classroom through effective questioning, and think-alouds, I remember an
observation of a colleague in a Year 7 lesson, where one student (Student A),
who had been absent the day before, felt ‘lost’ with a grammar point. The
teacher used this as an opportunity to review the learning of all students by
selecting one confident student (Student B) to explain to lost Student A what the
details of the language point were. Student A was asked if he understood, and
when deigning to say ‘no, not quite’, the teacher asked for another go at the
explanation from Student B, and Student A explained again, slightly differently,
with different words. Student A was asked again if that made enough sense,
and when he replied with another ‘no, not quite’, the teacher selected another
keen and confident student who wanted to try helping – and she chose from
many keen students. When Student A had finally understood, many students
had contributed to helping him understand, and also displayed an excellent
level of understanding and progress themselves. These students who had
helped had not only demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter, but
had also used higher order thinking skills, and so had also benefited from the
experience, since the demands of explaining the grammar to their peer made
them deepen their own thinking, and the ability to rephrase, explain in your own
words, and synthesise knowledge, develops more advanced higher stages of
thinking (Jones & Wiliam, 2008).
This was an effective blend of teacher and informal peer-assessment, since
these peers responded and produced information in answer to the prompting of
the teacher, but here, crucially, the reason for it was helping a peer to
understand and reach the same level of understanding as them, which worked
effectively to develop the learning, and skills, of all the students.
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
16
This conclusion is supported by a study on centrality in assessment in Iran,
which focused on a written task, and though limited in its breadth, showed how
all three types of assessment expressed no centrality (which is negative and
should be reduced) (Farrokhi et al., 2011). There is a reported maximum
improvement in writing when students take part in peer- and self-assessment
together with teacher assessment (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015). Clearly, there are
promising prospects in using a combination of teacher and pupil feedback in
classes, since students can receive a greater quantity of feedback, faster
(Farrokhi et al., 2011; Knoch & Macqueen, 2017).
It is clear from these reflections on classroom practice that the best kind of
assessment is that which blends teacher and pupil assessment, and contains
shared learning objectives and success criteria, with effective teacher
questioning to support and guide the pupils.
Conclusion
Though Wiliam is an active and persuasive advocate of how formative
assessment should be a priority for all teachers, it is the case that teachers
need to be aware of how a combination of summative and formative
assessment may contribute to better overall performance of students (Wiliam,
2013; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2019). Furthermore, it would seem a
blend of pupil and teacher assessment contributes best to developing
metacognitively aware and self-regulated learners. This is especially the case if
summative assessment can also be used, or interpreted, for formative gains, as
seen in my classroom practice with the ‘GPM’ self-assessment task after the
tests were given back to the pupils, and where the students shared in the
understanding of the success criteria, and became owners of their own learning
(Jones & Wiliam, 2008). This is ultimately what is desired: always taking one
step closer to being, or becoming an independent language learner. It is
important, therefore, to always share the success criteria and learning
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
17
objectives and intentions with the students, and to always involve the students
and their peers. Furthermore, it is also critical that, inside of this, there is a
blend of pupil assessment, which is a regular, ongoing practice in classes, and
teacher assessment, which is supported with effective questioning – the key to
good language teaching (Jones & Wiliam, 2008).
Random questioning of the whole class has proven indispensable in the
classroom, for keeping engagement, managing behaviour, and for checking
understanding and progress. A drawback, however, which should reduce a
teacher’s dependence on it as an AfL strategy, is that it is difficult to know if the
randomly selected student can be considered representative of any other
students in the class – maybe the students who are struggling remain randomly
unchosen, and thus, the teacher is unaware of the unmade progress of those
students. Furthermore, though it allows the teacher to see the progress of the
students quickly and under control, it is not as effective as self-assessment, or
even peer-assessment. In my practice going forward I will work on finding ways
to continue to develop peer and self-assessment.
However, though improving assessment in the classroom results in improved
outcomes for learners, this might not be so easy in practice. In theory, without
students present, it might seem easy, but in practice, it is more difficult, since to
improve assessment in the classroom would require the class teacher to
change their habits (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). As a new teacher, I am in a
position to build and form habits in the classroom, so I will work to make the
most of formative assessment experiences in the classroom, as part of the
nascence of my teaching career, in order to always cater to the needs of the
students, whether it is from one task to the next inside of a lesson, or from one
lesson to the next. I will work to use assessment at regular intervals, and make
sure that the assessment covers a variety of skills – with appropriate
methodology, and used to motivate students, this makes for the best tests
(Smith & Conti, 2016). I will also work to make sure to share learning objectives
and clear success criteria with the students, and guide this with thoughtful
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
18
questioning, especially as part of any practice in developing peer and self-
assessment, so that the students can become empowered self-regulated and
autonomous language learners.
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
19
References
Agcam, R. & Babanoglu, M. P. (2016). Students’ Perceptions of Language
Testing and Assessment in Higher Education. Üniversitepark Bülten. Vol. 5, No.
1-2, (pp.66-77).
Ahmed, F., Ali, S. & Ali Shah, R. (2019). Exploring Variation in Summative
Assessment: Language Teachers’ Knowledge of Students' Formative
Assessment and Its Effect on their Summative Assessment. Bulletin of
Education and Research. Vol. 41, No. 2, (pp. 109-119).
Alderson, J. C., Brunfaut, T. & Harding, L. (2015). Towards a Theory of
Diagnosis in Second and Foreign Language Assessment: Insights from
Professional Practice Across Diverse Fields. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 36, No. 2,
(pp236-260).
Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: attitudes and
friendship bias. Language Testing in Asia, Vol. 3, No. 11, (pp1-10).
Birjandi, P. & Bolghari, M. S., (2015). The Relationship between the Accuracy of
Self- and Peer-assessment of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners and Their
Learning Styles. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 5,
(pp996-1006).
Black, P., Harrison, C. Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working Inside
the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan.
Vol. 86, No. 1, (pp.8-21).
Chandio, M. T. & Jafferi, S. (2015). Teaching English as a Language not
Subject by Employing Formative Assessment. Journal of Education and
Educational Development. Vol. 2, No. 2, (pp151-171).
Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment is for Self-Regulated
Learning. Educational Psychology Review. Vol. 24, No. 2, (pp.205-249).
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
20
Estaji, M. & Mirzaii, M. (2018). Enhancing EFL learners’ vocabulary learning
through formative assessment: Is the effort worth expending? Language
Learning in Higher Education. Vol. 8, No. 2, (pp239-264).
Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R. & Dalili, M. V. (2011). Applying the Many-Facet
Rasch Model to Detect Centrality in Self-Assessment, Peer-Assessment and
Teacher assessment. World Applied Sciences Journal 15 (Innovation and
Pedagogy for Lifelong Learning). (pp70-77).
Gan, Z., He, J. & Liu, F. (2019). Understanding Classroom Assessment
Practices and Learning Motivation in Secondary EFL Students. The Journal of
Asia TEFL. Vol. 16, No. 3, (pp.783-800).
Hill, J. & West, H. (2020). Improving the student learning experience through
dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education. Vol. 45, Issue 1, (pp.82 – 97).
Jones, J. & Wiliam, D. (2008). Modern Foreign Languages inside the black box.
London: GL Assessment.
Knoch, U. & Macqueen, S. (2017). Assessment in the L2 classroom. In S.
Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second
language acquisition. New York, United States: Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group. (pp.181–202).
Leenknecht, M.J. & Prins, F.J. (2018). Formative peer assessment in primary
school: the effects of involving pupils in setting assessment criteria on their
appraisal & feedback style. European Journal of Psychology of Education.
Vol.33, No.1, (pp101-116).
Léger, D. (2009). Self-Assessment of Speaking Skills and Participation in a
Foreign Language Class. Foreign Language Annals. Vol. 42, No. 1, (pp158-
178).
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C.H., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer
assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 45, No. 2, (pp193 – 211).
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
21
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese
university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing. Vol. 26, No. 1, (pp75-
100).
McAlpine, M. (2002). Principles of Assessment. Luton: CAA Centre, University
of Luton.
McTighe, J. & O'Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning.
Educational Leadership. Vol. 63, No. 3. (pp10-17).
Pachler, N., Evans, M., Redondo, A. & Fisher, L. (2014). Learning to Teach
Foreign Languages in the Secondary School: A companion to school
experience, 4th edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating
and commenting. Language Testing. Vol. 25, No.4, (pp513-581).
Sanaeifar, S.H., & Nafari, F.N. (2018). The Effects of Formative and Dynamic
Assessments of Reading Comprehensions on Intermediate EFL Learners' test
Anxiety. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 8, No. 5, (pp533-540).
Sartaj, S., Kadri, S., Shah, S.F.H. & Siddiqui, A. (2019). Investigating the
Effectiveness of Classroom Based Assessment on ESL Teaching Strategies
and Techniques in Pakistan: Study from Teachers’ Perspective. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 9, No. 7, (pp826-834).
Smith, S. & Conti, G. (2016). Assessment, Feedback and Marking. In The
Language Teacher Toolkit. (pp.337-350).
Stiggins, R. & Chappuis, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes:
Assessment FOR learning rather than assessment OF learning helps students
succeed. National Development Council. Vol. 27, No. 1, (pp10-14).
Tang, L. (2016). Formative Assessment in Oral English Classroom and
Alleviation of Speaking Apprehension. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies. Vol. 6, No. 4, (pp751-756).
Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)
22
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational
Evaluation. Vol. 37, No. 1, (pp3-14).
Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning.
Voices from the Middle. Vol. 21, No. 2, (pp15-20).
Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded Formative Assessment, 2nd Edition. Indiana:
Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. (2020). Conference – Dylan Wiliam Center. Available online:
https://www.dylanwiliamcenter.com/conference/. Accessed: 20 April 2020.
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding Formative Assessment. Florida:
Learning Sciences International.
Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C. & Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers developing
assessment for learning: impact on student achievement. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. Vol. 11, No. 1, (pp49-65).
Yan, Z. (2020). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its
relationship with academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education. Vol. 45, Issue 2, (pp224-238).