Changing Assessment Practices: Tensions between Individual and Institutional

Author(s):

Leonor Santos(presenting / submitting)Jorge Pinto(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement

Format:

Paper

Session Information

09 SES 08 C, Teachers’ Roles in Assessment Practices

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

09:00-10:30

Room:

B009 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Caroline Long

Contribution

Although there is evidence that gains for students learning can be obtained through formative assessment practices (Black & Wiliam, 2003), the dominant assessment practices continue to be based on the status of the student and the ratings are still key to the pedagogical decisions (Torrance & Pryor, 2001). This situation can also be found in Portugal. In a recent OECD report on education in Portugal (Santiago, Donaldson, Looney, & Nusche, 2012) it is recognized that teaching is still very traditional. There is a predominance of the summative assessment practices in the classroom, rather than formative ones, as well as a limited use of feedback. Student retention still has too much weight on school practices.

The research points to a relative conceptual adhesion of teachers with regard to formative assessment. However, effective formative assessment practices are still seen as a very demanding practice for teachers (Barreira & Pinto, 2005). This is perhaps one of the reasons why formative assessment, when it happens, it is practiced with little depth (Fernandes, 2006). This gap between the conceptions and the practices of teachers may be due to the persistence of bureaucratic organizational logic, where the pedagogical impersonality and the uniformity of practices are structural dimensions (Formosinho & Machado, 2007).

This characterization of the Portuguese situation led to the OECD report, where it was considered that students should be placed at the center of the assessment and formative assessment should be strengthened in the teachers practice. We understand formative assessment throughout the assessment practice that is intended to promote learning (Santos & Pinto, 2011). However, changing the teachers’ pratice is neither simple nor linear (Hargreaves, 1998). Recognizing this is an ongoing collaborative work within a team formed by two researchers (the authors of this paper) and two mathematics teachers. We assume that collegial support (Mewborn, 2003) as well as heterogeneous teams (Jaworski, 2001) can provide a favorable context for practice changes, in particular the assessment practices that by their nature offer an increase of difficulties, not only because the assessment assumes a very prominent visibility in the school with parents interface, as it brings to the foreground a deeply rooted culture of assessment in schools and in society. This often creates tensions between individual and institutional change (Perrenoud, 1992). In order to develop in the context of practice itself it demands research about their own practice (Llinares & Krainer, 2006; Ruthven & Goodchild, 2008), thus contributing to the establishment of a significant relationship between theory and practice.

The objectives of this collaborative work are, on the one hand, to develop formative assessment practices and, on the other, to study the dynamics of changes that operate at the school level. This paper focuses only on this second goal. To this end, the following questions were formulated:

- What are the dimensions of change in assessment practices that lead teachers to feel they have to ask permission for their achievement?

- How do changes in assessment practices in place are accepted by the other teachers in the group?

- How do changes in assessment practices in place are seen at the institutional level?

Method

This study follows an interpretative methodology (Cohen, Lawrence & Morrison, 2007) as it seeks to provide an understanding concerning the dynamics, at the school level, of the changing process in assessment practice of a group of two mathematics teachers. One mathematics teacher of middle schooling (students from 12 and 14 years old), Rosa (pseudonymous name), had participated, in past years, in a research project focused in the study of formative assessment practices. She worked in a large group with researchers (the authors of this paper) and others teachers. She expressed interest in pursuing that work at her school, collaborating with another colleague, Theresa (pseudonymous name), a very close friend, with whom she normally works. The objective of this collaborative work was to improve some assessment practice already in development. The assessment practice chosen by the teachers was the development by the students of a set of tasks after an assessment test, similar to it. Students had to do this work autonomously and individually, out of the class, and to present the work in an established data. However, students were encouraged to seek help in order to show a better performance in this set of tasks than they had shown in the assessment test. Students got this help from the teacher, family, colleagues, other teachers in or out school, and they could also use the book, notebook and internet. This work was not compulsory. The changes introduced during the collaborative work were as follow: all students had to do this work; they had to accomplish only the tasks concerning to the one they failed in the test; and as a result of this work they changed their previous test classification in certain conditions. The data was collected through the observation of the collaborative work sessions (audio recorded), documental analysis (in particular all the documents addressed to the other teachers and meeting minutes) and focus interviews to Rosa and Theresa. Following the analysis there was a content analysis considering the following dimensions: the nature of changes with implications to the school level; the reactions of all the mathematics teachers face to the changes; the school reactions face to the changes.

Expected Outcomes

Although the study is still in development, a first level of analysis allows us to move forward with some initial results. Rosa and Theresa decided that this new way of working must be presented to the group of mathematics teachers and to the Pedagogical Board, asking for permission in this second school context. According to them, the possibility of changing the initial ranking obtained by the students in the test introduces changes to the assessment criteria defined by the mathematics teachers. It was the summative component that led the teachers to "make public" their practice and even feel the need to ask for authorization from higher educational entities. Summative assessment is recognized as having a dominant status and formalized procedures (Figari & Remaud, 2014), even by teachers who believe in the value of formative assessment and invest in it. The remaining group of mathematics teachers, which were previously implementing the same assessment practice, agreed to introduce the changes proposed by the two teachers, but at a level of applicators and not as co-responsible for the conceptualization and development. Teachers revealed themselves available to improve their practices, but were no predispose to invest in the conceptualization process of change. Thus, there is evidence of adherence to the idea of change, which may ultimately reflect in the future extension of collaborative group work. Contrary to the expectations of both teachers, the Pedagogical Board did not raise any problems to their proposal, accepting it. The school as a whole seems to have flexibility and some recognition of the importance of diversity, opposing the idea of logic of bureaucratic school (Formosinho & Machado, 2007). One can therefore conclude that some expected constraints or tensions at the individual level are not confirmed at the institutional level, thus opening up the possibility for change.

References

Barreira, C., & Pinto, J. (2005). A investigação em Portugal sobre a avaliação das aprendizagens dos alunos (1990-2005). Investigar em Educação, 4, 21-105. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). In praise of educational research’ formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 624-637. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Fernandes, D. (2006). Vinte anos de avaliação das aprendizagens: Uma síntese interpretativa de artigos publicados em Portugal. Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, 40(3), 289-348. Figari, G., & Remaud, D. (2014). Méthodologie d'évaluation en éducation et formation. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Formosinho, J., & Machado, J. (2007).Anónimo do séc. XX. A construção da pedagogia burocrática. In J. Oliveira-Formosinho, T. Kishimoto & M. Pinazza (Coords.), Pedagogia(s) da Infância. Dialogando com o passado, construindo o futuro (pp. 293-328). Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora. Hargreaves, A. (1998). Os professores em tempos de mudança: O trabalho e a cultura dos professores na idade pós-moderna. Lisboa, Portugal: McGraw Hill. Jaworski, B. (2001). Developing mathematics teaching: teachers, teacher educators, and researchers as co-learners. In F. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics education (pp. 295-320). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). Mathematics (student) teachers and teacher educators as learners. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, present and future (pp. 429-460). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Mewborn, D. (2003). Teaching, teachers' knowledge, and their professional development. In NCTM (Ed.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 45-52). Reston, Virginia: NCTM. Perrenoud, Ph. (1992). Não mexam na minha avaliação! Para uma abordagem sistémica da mudança pedagógica. In A. Estrela & A. Nóvoa (Orgs.), Avaliações em Educação: Novas perspectivas (pp. 155-173). Lisboa: Educa. Santiago, P.; Donaldson, G.; Looney, A., & Nusche, D. (2012). OECD Reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Portugal. OECD (http://www.oecd.org/edu/evaluationpolicy) Ruthven, K,. & Goodchild, S. (2008). Linking research with teaching: Towards synergy of scholarly and craft knowledge. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education –Second Edition (565-592). New York: Routledge. Santos, L., & Pinto, J. (2011). Is assessment for learning possible in early school years? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 283-289. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615-631.

Author Information

Leonor Santos (presenting / submitting)

Institute of Education, University of Lisbon

Institute of Education

Lisbon

Jorge Pinto (presenting)

Escola Superior de Educação - Instituto Politecnico de Setubal

Ciencias Sociais e Pedagogia

Setubal

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.