Assessment for learning: the use of feedback and portfolio

Author(s):

Leonor SantosJorge Pinto

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement

Format:

Paper

Session Information

09 SES 02 B, Assessment of Instructions and Learning

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-28

11:15-12:45

Room:

HG, Marietta- Blau-Saal

Chair:

Birgit Eickelmann

Contribution

The paradigm that school’s ultimate goal is to help all students to learn by learning (Delors et al., 1996). New approach to learning leads to a new culture of assessment (Dierick & Dochy, 2001). However, the dominant assessment practices are still widely based on judgement on the status of the student and the grades are still the key elements (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Torrance & Pryor, 2001). According to this situation, as it is ongoing in other countries of Europe (ex. Black et al., 2003), we are developing in Portugal a project, Project AREA , which main objective is to understand which assessment practices can become a real learning tool. In this paper we focus on the following questions: (i) which are the main potentialities of some assessment practices and (ii) how to develop these assessment practices all along the project. Assessment goes through gathering evidences, followed by its interpretation and finally in an action based on the hypothesis reached (Wiliam & Black, 1996). However, this type of assessment will only be truly a formative assessment if there are implications to the learning. Some particular practices may contribute for this learning process, such as, the feedback and portefólio as an alternative assessment instrument. A key element to an assessment for learning is feedback. Feedback is perceived as the information that shows how apart is the “performed” to the “expected” in order to minimize that difference (Sadler, 1989). To observe the position it stands in the teaching and learning process is not entirely new (Bellanger, 1988); however, actually the error is seen as something inherent to the act of acknowledging itself. The recognition of the error is, all alone, a learning process (Meirieu, 1988). But being able to overcome an error demands a process of meta-knowledge, which can also be considered as a learning strategy (Santos, 2002). Not every assessment discourse guarantees a monitoring action. There are even some authors that distinguish two types: the assessment feedback and the descriptive one (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996; Gipps, 1999). Also, it is the quality and not just the quantity of feedback provided that deserves our attention (Sadler, 1998). Among the different assessment instruments, the portfolio must be outstand as a way to make the students develop their reflection capacities on how and what they had just done, as well as to give them greater autonomy in decision making (Clarke, 1996; Wiliam, 2007).

Method

The project AREA has been developed since three school years. The project team includes researchers and teachers from pre-school to secondary school level. All of the research studies carried on until now, followed an interpretative research methodology approach, namely research action methodology, and used, in general, case study design. Research studies concerning feedback were developed by two mathematics teachers (one of them during a period of three years) from schools in different areas of Portugal. The participants were students from middle school level (twelve to fourteen years old). Another teacher developed during three years the use of portfolio with pre-school children (five years old). The data was gathered through classroom observation and students’ interviews (audio recorded) and documents produced by the students. The data analysis was made alongside the data collection and took the form of content analysis. The categories were constructed a posteriori, although shaped by the theoretical framework.

Expected Outcomes

The feedback of a descriptive nature (Gipps, 1999), contextualized by the task and with detailed directions as to how to proceed (Wiliam, 1999) is potentially more favourable to learning, nevertheless not all feedback with these characteristics has the same positive effects regarding learning. The form of the comments as well its length, the type of student and its perceptions are factors that can influence the effectiveness of this assessment practice. The use of portfolio in pre-school has developed all along the period of three years. Beginning with the purpose to permit a shared analysis between the teacher and the children concerning their performance, a way to prepare a differentiate practice has been added, to be included in the third year the identification and planning, by the children, of future action to be developed that can answer to their needs (Wiliam, 2007).

References

Bellanger, M. (1988). Errors in arithmetic computation: A century of American speculation. In Commission Internationale pour l´étude de l´amélioration de l´enseignement des mathématiques (Org.), Rôle de l´erreur dans l´apprentissage et l´enseignement de la mathématique. Sherbrooke: Les éditions de l´Université de Sherbrooke. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. Black, P.; Harrison, C.; Lee, C.; Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Putting it into practice. London: Open University Press. Clarke, D. (1996). Assessment. In A. J. Bishop, K Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 327-370). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Delors, J. et al.(1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Dierick, S. & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: new forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Assessment, 27, 307-329. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355-392. Meirieu, P. (1988). Apprendre…oui, mais comment? Paris: ESF. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144. Sadler, P. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1), 77-84. Santos, L. (2002). Auto avaliação regulada: porquê, o quê e o como. In Paulo Abrantes & Filomena Araújo (Coords.), Avaliação das Aprendizagens – das concepções às práticas (pp. 77-84). Lisboa: ME, Departamento do Ensino Básico. 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. Tunstall, P. & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: a typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404. Wiliam, D. (1999). Formative assessment in mathematics. Equals: Mathematics and Special Educational Needs, 5(3), 8-11. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track. In F. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053-1098). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Wiliam, D. & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.

Author Information

Leonor Santos

University of Lisbon

Faculty of Science, Department of Education

Lisbon

174

Jorge Pinto

Polithecnic Institute of Setubal

Shool of Education

Lisboa

174

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.