Rene’s Assessment

I attended a guest lecture by Jesse Martin on how Psychology can contribute to the scholarship of teaching. It was an interesting talk, but the thing that really caught my attention concerned feedback.

Jesse was illustrating how we often fail to apply well understood psychological principles and research to our practice by looking at the current hype around feedback. According to existing cognitive research, extensive feedback actually breeds compliance, not learning. While targeted feedback at key points in someones development is important, continuous detailed feedback actually inhibits independent critical thought.While a bit of a shock at first, I must admit that this does make sense on an intuitive level. So then what do we do?

Well, there are some usefull suggestions from existing psychological research here as well. One observed phenomenon that we might exploit is the testing effect. This effect describes how neural connections are strengthened by retrieval. practice, such as through formative assessment, can therefor enhance the retention of what has been learned. it has also been shown to improve the retention over time.

So formative assessment is still seen as crucial. But it might be that the activity is much more important then the feedback resulting from it.

Tweet This Post

One of the topics that came up several times over the past days in Reykjavik, is that of the differences in culture around assessment. Different countries have different ways in which they perceive and deal with assessment, and this can have a significant impact on the effect of the assessments, and the success of the educational system as a whole.

One particularly interesting approach was outlined by Jakob Wandall, who’s work in the Danish national tests I have blogged about last year in High stake national assessments and ranking. I tried to capture Jakob’s slide on a picture, but unfortunately that failed rather miserably, so I have tried to recreate his message in the graphic below:

The graph outlines how both the focus of the assessment (on the horizontal axis) and the purpose for which the results are primarily used (on the vertical axis) vary from country to country. I thought the visualisation was very interesting. Comparing this to, for instance, the outcomes of the 2006 PISA, it is interesting to note that neither the approach of the Scandinavian schools (who focus primarily on learner focused formative assessment) nor the Anglo-Saxon approach 9that is much more heavy on the measurements of indicators for performance, tied in to funding) really yields the best results.

The starts of PISA are of course the Finnish, and the unique approach is apparent from this graph. in stead of moving somewhere between the top left and the bottom right of the graph, they sit toward the top right. The Finish system highly values national measurements, evaluating the success of the system by objective measurements. However these measurements are not tied to any control, either through formal channels or more informal ones such as public rankings. In stead the measurements made in the Finnish system have the purpose to inform teaching and learning. An evidence based approach to teaching shall we say.

When I translate this to our own practice, I can’t help but relate this to demands to increase the amounts of formative assessment in our teaching. And while I am sympathetic to these demands, these assessments are similar to those in the top left of the above graph, informing and supporting individual learning processes. And so perhaps in stead of focusing primarily on formative individual assessment, we should focus (also) on assessment and evaluation that informs teaching. Building an infrastructure through which lecturers can stay in touch with the progress, successes and difficulties of all their students, and modify their teaching based on this understanding continuously.

Tweet This Post

A group of 34 prominent academics has taken a laudible stance against our current assessment culture (see also this THE article). You can find the manifesto and it’s supporters at the bottom of this post. Point 3 especially I think is very poignant within the context of e-Assessment, where our obsession with the measurable (I’m thinking Item Response Theory here) has gotten way out of hand at the expense of validity.

The Weston Manor Group

Assessment standards: a manifesto for change

1. The debate on standards needs to focus on how high standards of learning can be achieved through assessment. This requires a greater emphasis on assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning.

1. When it comes to the assessment of learning, we need to move beyond systems focused on marks and grades towards the valid assessment of the achievement of intended programme outcomes.

1. Limits to the extent that standards can be articulated explicitly must be recognised since ever more detailed specificity and striving for reliability, all too frequently, diminish the learning experience and threaten its validity. There are important benefits of higher education which are not amenable either to the precise specification of standards or to objective assessment.

1. Assessment standards are socially constructed so there must be a greater emphasis on assessment and feedback processes that actively engage both staff and students in dialogue about standards. It is when learners share an understanding of academic and professional standards in an atmosphere of mutual trust that learning works best.

1. Active engagement with assessment standards needs to be an integral and seamless part of course design and the learning process in order to allow students to develop their own, internalised, conceptions of standards, and monitor and supervise their own learning.

1. Assessment is largely dependent upon professional judgement, and confidence in such judgement requires the establishment of appropriate forums for the development and sharing of standards within and between disciplinary and professional communities.

Supporters:

Professor Trudy Banta

Dr Simon Barrie

Professor Sally Brown

Ms Cordelia Bryan

Dr Colin Bryson

Ms Jude Carroll

Professor Sue Clegg

Professor Linda Drew

Professor Graham Gibbs

Professor Anton Havnes

Dr Mary Lea

Dr Janet Macdonald

Professor Ranald Macdonald

Dr Debra Macfarlane

Dr Susan Martin

Professor Marcia Mentkowski

Dr Stephen Merry

Professor David Nicol

Professor Andy Northedge

Professor Lin Norton

Ms Berry O’Donovan

Dr Thomas Olsson

Dr Susan Orr

Dr Paul Orsmond

Professor Margaret Price

Professor Phil Race

Mr Clive Robertson

Dr Mark Russell

Dr Chris Rust

Professor Gilly Salmon

Professor Kay Sambell

Professor Brenda Smith

Professor Stephen Swithenby

Professor Mantz Yorke

Tweet This Post