Enacting Assessment for Learning: The beliefs / practice nexus

Author(s):

Helen DixonJudy Parr Eleanor Hawe

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 08 A, Teacher Tools for Improvement

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-30

08:30-10:00

Room:

NIG, HS I

Chair:

Gernot Aich

Contribution

Feedback is an essential component of formative assessment (Bell & Cowie, 1997, 2001; Black, 2000; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Pryor & Torrance, 1997; Sadler, 1989, 1998; Torrance & Pryor, 1998), which if used appropriately can support and scaffold students’ learning (Gipps, 1994; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Torrance & Pryor, 1998; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996) and lead to substantial learning gains. While the significance of feedback to learning has been well established (Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1996; Hattie & Jaeger, 1998), its impact on learning has proved to be both positive and negative (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). While many published studies emphasise the importance of feedback, few have investigated the meaning of feedback in relation to classroom learning. This has led to calls for research “to qualitatively and quantitatively investigate how feedback works in the classroom and learning processes” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 p. 104). Indeed, an in-depth perusal of the literature reveals a paucity of studies that have “systematically investigated the meaning of feedback in classrooms” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). It therefore seemed timely to investigate the question “How is feedback conceptualised and implemented by teachers?” Cognisant of the critical interplay between beliefs and practice, the current study investigated primary school teachers’ beliefs and understandings about feedback, and the use of feedback to enhance student learning. Central to the investigation has been an exploration of teachers’ beliefs about the nature and place of feedback in student learning and of their role and that of learners in the feedback process. Of equal importance has been an examination of the strategies and practices that teachers utilised and ascribed importance to within the feedback process, including the opportunities offered to students in relation to the development of evaluative and productive knowledge and expertise (Sadler, 1989). To facilitate this investigation, Sadler’s (1989) theory of formative assessment and feedback was used as a framework to inform both the research design and subsequent analyses.

Method

Utilising an interpretive, qualitative, case study methodology the current research was conducted in two sequential phases. Phase one consisted of semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 20 experienced teachers. In phase two, three of these 20 participants were selected purposively for classroom observations of teachers’ feedback practice during the teaching of a written language unit. Criteria, reflective of the contemporary feedback discourse were established in the belief they would provide ‘information-rich cases’ (Merriam, 1998): Essentially teachers were selected for Phase two because their discourse and self-reported practice were consistent with what is identified within the literature as ‘best’ feedback practice (for example, Hattie & Jaegar, 1998; Sadler, 1989; Torrance & Pryor, 2001), Additional data were generated through semi-structured interviews, field notes and the collection of relevant artefacts. Three recognised approaches to data analysis were utilised: thematic analysis, the constant comparison method and discourse analysis.

Expected Outcomes

Utilising Sadler’s framework illuminated similarities and differences among teachers in regard to the nature, place and role of feedback in learning and teaching and to the norms of behaviour teachers promoted within the feedback process. While each of the three case study teachers had adopted many of the strategies associated with contemporary notions of good feedback practice the ways in which these strategies were implemented in the classroom was a matter of considerable variation in regard to the nature of student involvement and the amount of control maintained by the teacher. Findings supported Fang’s (1996) consistency/inconsistency thesis. In two of the three cases there was a high degree of consistency between teachers’ stated intentions and their actions while in the third the opposite was apparent. The complexity of the beliefs/practice nexus was highlighted in regard to the influence of teachers’ tacit, at times outmoded beliefs, on practice.

References

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science education. Report of the Learning in Science project (assessment). Hamilton: Centre for Science, Mathematics, Technology Education Research, University of Waikato. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3&4), 407-419. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing. London: Falmer Press. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects on learning skills intervention on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136. Hattie, J., & Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A deductive approach. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 111-122. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (1997). Making sense of formative assessment. International Studies in Educational Administration, 25(2), 115-125. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment. Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press. 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. Presenting author’s publications Hawe, E., Dixon, H., & Watson, E. (2008). Oral feedback in the context of written language. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 31(1), 43-58. Haigh, M. & Dixon, H. (2007). Why am I doing these things?: Engaging in classroom based inquiry around formative assessment. Journal of In-Service Education, 33(3), 359-376. Turnbull, M., & Dixon, H. (2006). Engaging in collaborative research: Lessons learned. NZ Research in Early Childhood Education, 9, 91-104. Haigh, M. & Dixon, H (2006) Becoming and being a teacher researcher: Discovering the essence of classroom-based research – the varied experiences of four secondary mathematics teachers. Refereed paper accepted for presentation at NZARE Conference, December 2006 Dixon, H. (2005). The efficacy of using a feedback typology as a heuristic device to deconstruct teachers’ feedback practice. Waikato Journal of Education, 11(2), 49-65. Dixon, H. & Williams, R. (2003). Formative assessment and the professional development of teachers: Are we focusing on what is important? SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 35-39. Hawe, E., Dixon, H., Williams, R., & Tuck, B. (2003). School Entry Assessment tasks: Why do teachers do them - or not? SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 18-24. Dixon, H. & Williams, R. (2002). Teachers’ understanding and use of formative assessment for literacy learning. In I. Livingstone (Ed.), New Zealand Annual Review of Education (pp. 95-110). School of Education: Victoria University of Wellington. Hawe, E., Tuck, B., Dixon, H., & Williams, R. (2002) School Entry Assessment: Diminishing Returns. Monograph Series. Auckland: Auckland College of Education. Carpenter, V., Dixon, H., Rata, E., & Rawlinson, C. (Eds.). (2001). Theory in practice for educators. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Dixon, H. Williams, R & Snook, I. (2001). Conflicting perceptions. Teachers: Technicians or professionals? ACE Papers, 1. Dixon, H. & Williams, R. (2000). School entry assessment: Implementation issues. SET, 1, 32-36. Williams, R. & Dixon, H. (1998) School Entry Assessment: Praiseworthy or perilous? SAMEpapers. Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Waikato. Journal articles under review Dixon, H. & Haigh, M. (Under review) “Changing mathematics teachers’ conceptions of assessment and feedback”. Submitted to “Teacher Development. An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development”.

Author Information

Helen Dixon

University of Auckland

Academic Programmes

Auckland

162

Judy Parr

The University of Auckland, New Zealand

Eleanor Hawe

The University of Auckland, New Zealand

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.