Dynamic Assessment: Integrating Assessment for Learning Principles in the Teacher Education programme at the University of Oslo

Author(s):

Marte Blikstad-Balas(presenting / submitting)Kirsti Engelien(presenting)Lisbeth Brevik

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement

Format:

Paper

Session Information

09 SES 10 B, Formative and Summative Assessments

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-25

15:30-17:00

Room:

NM-F103a

Chair:

Danijela Trskan

Contribution

This paper provides an analysis of the integration of Assessment for Learning (AfL) principles in the newly revised 5-year Master of Education (ME) programme at the University of Oslo, Norway; across disciplinary subjects, pedagogy, and school practice. The question of how to educate future teachers in effectively using assessments to promote, monitor, and report on student learning is timelier than ever. In an increasingly accountability-oriented European educational context, teachers are expected to provide dependable assessment – and teacher education programmes across countries are expected to enable their student teachers to use assessment in ways that increase and reflect student performance (e.g. DeLuca & Klinger, 2010).

This paper responds to the call for increased research in assessment education, by examining the integration of assessment principles in a specific teacher education programme . The integrated Master of Education (ME) programme examined in the study explicitly aims to educate future teachers in their application of assessment principles to promote student learning. The development of this programme has been a collaborative effort by the established teacher education programme at UiO and the Norwegian Centre for Professional Learning in Teacher Education (ProTed), to develop a future-oriented knowledge-based teacher education, carried out in close collaboration with student teachers, practitioners, teacher educators, and researchers, and involves activating the innovative, future- and internationally-oriented teacher. In the development of a coherent study design, UiO has consciously attempted to design assessment situations in which student teachers will have the opportunity to develop their competence and skills that are highly relevant for professional teaching practices.

Thus, the presentation will address key topics in European assessment education, as it investigates how assessment principles and practices are integrated in the university education, how the student teachers apply assessment principles in their own instructional practices at UiO's partner schools, and to what extent they use self-assessment principles to reflect on their own teaching practices. Such a perspective is in line with constructive alignment (CA), in which Biggs (1996) argues the importance of relating the teaching and learning activities with the assessment situations used in the teacher education programme – so-called dynamic assessment (Colleague 1 & Author 2, 2015; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005; Quellmalz et al., 2012). We aim to shed light on how innovative and research-based approaches to assessment can be integrated in teacher education – and discuss challenges and dilemmas encountered in preparing future teachers for dependable student assessment. We will argue the importance of enabling student teachers to apply assessment principles in their teaching, while at the same time using the principles to self-assess their own teaching practices

Method

This study used a multiple methods design (Bazeley & Kemp, 2012; Creswell, 2013) involving qualitative and quantitative data to identify how assessment principles are taught and assessed in the assessment component, and how student teachers apply assessment principles to their teaching practices. We ask: How and to what extent does the ME programme at UiO develop assessment capacity in student teachers through the assessment component? In order to answer this main research question, we have specified three sub-questions: RQ1: How are assessment principles taught across lectures, workshops, and seminars? RQ2: How and to what extent do student teachers apply assessment principles in their school practices? RQ3: How and to what extent do student teachers use SA principles to reflect on their practices? The analysis draws on lecture notes, student videos, and student exam papers among 143 student teachers participating in the assessment component in 2015. The study combines five different data sources: (1) lecture notes from teacher educators; (2) film documenting video based AFL in which student teachers conduct video recordings of their own classroom practices to get feedback from both their supervisor at school and a teacher educator at the university (3) praxis cards from students’ field placement, providing documentation in assessment situations at partner schools; (4) lesson plans, where student teachers provide a description of one of their own lessons at the practice school, with two of the mandatory rubrics directly concerning assessment: (a) feedback and assessment of their students, and (b) self-assessment of their teaching practices; and finally (5) The Research & Development reports, which document an inquiry into each student teacher’s own teaching. It is written over 14 weeks, and is summatively assessed. The R&D report could concern research on their instruction regarding either assessment or differentiation. In the present study, we have identified the R&D reports that address the student teachers’ assessment practices. (n= 137) The different data sources all concern the assessment education, and the analysis provides information about how assessment principles are taught at campus (we identified emphasis on assessment based on terminology: assessment for learning (AfL), assessment of learning (AoL), formative and/or summative assessment, aims, criteria, feedback, feed forward, SA, exams, tests) , how it is included in the student teachers planning of their own teaching and to what degree student teachers are able to self-asses their own teaching in different situations.

Expected Outcomes

While we find that student teachers are emphasizing assessment in their own teaching, we also find a lack of consistency between formative and summative assessment situations. While the student teachers are taught formative assessment principles at campus, they are assessed summatively on campus and formatively in their practice schools. Our findings also indicate that student teachers are more concerned with assessing their students, than using self-assessment to improve their instruction. In order to use evidence from assessment activities to adapt their teaching to student needs, it is crucial that student teachers also use the opportunities provided for self-assessment. Based on the findings, we argue the importance of relating the teaching and learning activities with the assessment situations used in the teacher education programme – so-called dynamic assessment. Dynamic assessment is enhanced by applying assessment principles to situations where the student teachers are assessed themselves. Introducing, modelling, and ensuring assessment principles are used by the student teachers is the teacher educators’ responsibility, just as introducing, modelling, and ensuring assessment principles are used by their students is a teacher’s responsibility. Focusing on the design of assessment situations in which student teachers can transfer, apply, and perform assessment based on their competence leads to a focus on mastery instead of lack of mastery. This in turn measures more than knowledge and skills, and the assessment principles will ideally be transferable from the university to school practice. It also seems that enabling student teachers to practice formal assessment at the university before designing, participating in, and conducting AfL could help develop their assessment capacity, along with dynamic assessment in terms of experiencing assessment on their own performances and exams during as part of their teacher education

References

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. 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, 86(1), 8–21. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–77. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Assessing assessment in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 187–193. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120–138. DeLuca, C., Chavez, T., & Cao, C. (2013). Pedagogies for preservice assessment education: Supporting teacher candidates’ assessment literacy development. The Teacher Educator, 48(2), 128–142. DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419–438. Dempster, F. N. (1992). Using tests to promote learning: A neglected classroom resource. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25(4), 213–217. Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 607–621. Hammerness, K. (2013). Examining features of teacher education in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 400–419. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 149–170. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. Stiggins, R. J. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right—-using it well. Portland, Oregon: Assessment Training Institute. Stobart, G. (2006). The validity of formative assessment. Assessment in Education Principles, Policy, & Practice, 13(3), 235–238. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221–237. Wiliam, D. (2011a). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Wiliam, D. (2011b). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14.

Author Information

Marte Blikstad-Balas (presenting / submitting)

University of Oslo, Norway

Kirsti Engelien (presenting)

University of Oslo, Norway

Department of Teacher Education and School Research

Oslo

Lisbeth Brevik

University of Oslo, Norway

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.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for