Preservice Teachers Learning How To Use Assessment For Equity
Author(s):
Mary Hill (presenting / submitting) Fiona Ell Lexie Grudnoff Mavis Haigh Marilyn Cochran-Smith Larry Ludlow
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
10. Teacher Education Research
Format:
Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

10 SES 05 E JS, Perceptions and Learning Opportunities of Beginner Teachers on Assessment

Joint Paper Session NW 09 and NW 10

Time:
2017-08-23
13:30-15:00
Room:
W5.18
Chair:
Martin Goy

Contribution

This presentation examines evidence regarding the assessment learning  of preservice teachers (PTs) in a new Master of Teaching (M Tchg) designed to prepare teachers to address the less than equitable outcomes of certain groups of students in New Zealand. The M Tchg, a one-year postgraduate degree, was designed and implemented in response to a call from the New Zealand Ministry of Education to offer programs that intentionally prepare teachers who can achieve positive and equitable outcomes for priority learners. In New Zealand, priority learners are students who have been identified as historically not experiencing success in the schooling system (Ministry of Education, 2014), including many Māori and Pacific learners, those from low socio-economic backgrounds and students with special education needs. The program has six facets of practice for equity, explained below, at its core. This presentation explores PTs’ learning regarding one of those facets: facet 4, using evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching, a set of principles for practice aligned with the formative use of assessment. The research questions that guided the study were: What assessment understandings do PTs develop in a program designed to prepare teachers to teach for equity? And, in what program contexts do these understandings develop?

 

In order to understand what it would take to put equity at the center in initial teacher education (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016), we had carried out an analysis of programs/syntheses of major programs of empirical research from various international contexts in order to identify teaching practices that promote equitable learner outcomes – broadly conceived to include social, emotional, civic, critical and academic outcomes. Our review was limited to those programs/syntheses that worked from a complex, non-linear view of teaching and learning. Using directed qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), six interconnected principles or facets of practice for equity emerged. These were: (1) selecting worthwhile content and designing and implementing learning opportunities aligned to valued learning outcomes; (2) connecting to students as learners, and their lives and experiences; (3) creating learning-focused, respectful and supportive learning environments; (4) using evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching; (5) adopting an inquiry stance and taking responsibility for professional engagement and learning; and, (6) recognizing and challenging classroom, school and societal practices that reproduce inequity (Grudnoff et al., 2015).

 

A further analysis of the five programs of research evidence identified teaching practices associated with each facet (Chang & Ludlow, 2016). For facet 4, using evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching to bring about more equitable outcomes, these practices are:

1.  Designing classroom assessment that is well integrated into instructional activities.

2.  Circulating and interacting with students, using a variety of approaches to elicit evidence of diverse students’ learning.

3.  Providing timely, substantive, constructive and highly responsive feedback.

4.  Being flexible and responsive in adjusting instruction and using alternative approaches to help all students to learn based on the results of diagnostic assessment.

5. Proactively involving students in the process of setting specific learning goals, and understanding the assessment criteria.

6. Providing an evaluative climate that is positive, where all students are motivated to learn and engage in self-monitoring their own progress.

These indicators are similar to the guiding principles of assessment for learning (AfL)

(Assessment Reform Group, 1999) and demonstrate that using evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching is intimately related to the formative purpose of assessment.

 

The M Tchg program was constructed with the six facets of practice for equity at its core and provided a site in which we could investigate PTs development of understanding assessment for equity and more specifically, examine their understanding of these five teaching actions.

Method

Following ethical approval, all 28 PTs in the first cohort of the M Tchg were invited, and 27 consented, to participate. The majority of participants were female (85%), the most common age group was 21–25 (39%), the largest group identified as New Zealanders (36%) with English as their first language (86%). They were more likely than not to come from families where someone else had been to university (86%). Three data sources provided evidence about PTs’ developing assessment for equity understanding: an electronic questionnaire within which five Likert-type items focused upon confidence in aspects of assessment and two open ended questions drew out ideas about assessment; students mathematics and literacy assignments selected because they sampled the PTs’ assessment understandings across the three semesters of the program; and a focus group interview at the conclusion of the program. The open-ended survey responses, assignments and interviews were transcribed and qualitative data assembled as numbered texts. Each participant was assigned a code number and the texts were analyzed qualitatively against the teaching actions of facet 4 listed above and then open coded for other information about assessment learning. Specifically, the first author and a research assistant conversant with qualitative content analysis each independently read the students’ responses/assignments and labeled all relevant statements according to the theoretical facet 4 teaching practices. Any assessment ideas or practices that did not fit these predetermined categories, or provided information about assessment learning, were also noted and open coded. Coding decisions were then compared and discrepancies were discussed and any inconsistencies were addressed.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of the Likert-type items in the surveys indicated that on a six point positively packed confidence scale this cohort, at exit, mostly reported feeling much more confident than at entry to the program. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey items also showed clear evidence that participants’ ideas about, and understanding of, aspects of assessment expanded during the program. The content analysis of the 72 assignments, however, revealed variability in PTs’ focus on the teaching practices related to assessment for equity. PTs mostly referred to ways teachers circulate and interact to elicit evidence of learning and how they adjust teaching based on the use of diagnostic assessments. There was less evidence of ways in which the PTs learned about and understood the other four teaching practices. Perhaps surprising, given the importance of feedback to formative assessment, was the lower number of inclusions for providing timely, substantive, constructive and responsive feedback. Although just over half (14) noted this in reference to their reading, only six gave examples of giving feedback themselves and only one reported observing teachers doing this. Three mentioned that receiving such feedback from lecturers and mentor teachers was helpful for their own learning. Involving students in the assessment process and motivating them to engage in self-assessment and monitoring were also practices included less often within these assignments. Overall the findings demonstrated that PTs combined theory and practice encountered in various contexts to build the assessment understanding and competence needed to address equity issues. We argue, with evidence from this study, that this understanding was facilitated by incorporating the assessment curriculum within each course, intertwining university and school experiences, and through a specific focus on addressing equity throughout the programme.

References

Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education. Chang, W-C., & Ludlow, L. (2016, April 9). Teaching for equity: How do we measure it? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Washington, DC. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M. F., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the centre? Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 67–78. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.006 Grudnoff, L., Hill, M.F., Haigh, M., Cochran-Smith, M. Ell, F., & Ludlow, L. (2015, April 16–20).Teaching for equity: Insights from international evidence. Presented at American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. Ministry of Education. (2014). The New Zealand curriculum: Priority learners. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Priority-learners

Author Information

Mary Hill (presenting / submitting)
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Fiona Ell
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Lexie Grudnoff
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Mavis Haigh
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Marilyn Cochran-Smith
Boston College, USA
Larry Ludlow
Boston College, USA

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.