Assessment and learning in schools

1 Setting the Context of Assessment and Learning in Schools Leong Wei Shin, Cheng Yuanshan and Kelvin Tan Teacher seeks information of direct practical value . . . the teacher needs to and must measure continuously . . . the teacher measures growth in stages. . . . The teacher must be concerned with behavioural dynamics in life situations. (Coffman, 1985, pp. 8−9) Assessment is one of the most challenging aspects of a teacher’s work in advancing the learning of students in schools; it is replete with various issues and decisions for teachers to grapple with. One can ask, for instance, whether a focus on tests and examinations actually leads students to genuinely learn. On the other hand, teachers are constantly assessing students during their teaching in order to be able to meet their learning needs, failing which students may just as well read from their textbooks or Internet resources. In this book, assessment is a broad and evolving term that refers to how teachers are constantly involved in collecting, evaluating, and using evidence of student learning for a variety of purposes through different processes. We recognise that, depending on the primary sub-fields of education (e.g., educational measurement, student learning and motivation, teaching and curricular design), assessment can be referred to by different names and with some variation in meanings. For instance, it can be referred to as measurement, classroom assessment, continuous assessment, informal assessment, student assessment, learning assessment, teacher assessment and formative assessment (Russell & Airasian, 2011). In many instances, it could be referred to as simply assessment. These different assessment terms highlight the complexities, challenges and obstacles that teachers need to negotiate every day in their classroom work. Coffman’s quote above, in drawing reference from Scates’ (1943) analysis 70 years ago, highlights the sharp differences between the work of classroom teachers and test-setting specialists. Teachers’ assessment attends to a wide range of assessment data emerging from students’ learning across a long period of time, sometimes involving getting to know the lives of students outside classrooms. The quote highlights a concern about assessment: that focusing only on the setting of tests and examinations, and measurement of student performances in isolated events, may leave teachers ill-equipped to conduct the assessment needed on a day-to-day basis, both inside and outside the classroom. Certain key precepts of testing and measurement, such as validity and reliability of differentiation of test and examination marks, are not easily understood and applicable in classroom settings. Teacher’s assessment work involves much more than teaching to tests, administering tests and analysing the results for improving next iteration of teaching (if at all). Assessment scholars like Coffman (1985) and Stiggins and Bridgeford (1985) have long pointed out that we need to broaden our understanding of what they consider the ecology or conditions, processes and outcomes of assessment and learning in the classroom. In recent years, researchers and scholars in educational psychology, curriculum development and theory, and school leadership and evaluation have added to the knowledge base of assessment and learning (McMillan, 2013). One of 1 M01_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH01.indd 1 15/07/14 8:44 PM 2 Chapter 1 Setting the Context of Assessment and Learning in Schools the most important recommendations to emerge from this growing knowledge base is to prioritise supporting teachers to learn from assessment in the classroom, not only to measure or quantify a student’s performance, but also to recognise, support and develop in practical ways the quality of a student’s wider and longer-term outcomes of learning. The recognition of a need to help teachers review their assessment beliefs, skills and knowledge at both policy and practice levels is an important context and impetus for the writing of many of the chapters in this book. BRIEF CONTEXT OF ASSESSMENT REFORM IN SINGAPOREAN SCHOOLS In 2008, the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee, led by Grace Fu, incumbent Minister of State for Education, Singapore, was formed to study ways to enhance school-based assessment within Singaporean primary mainstream education. At the same time, another review committee within the Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE), was convened to review and explore ways to refine the examination and assessment landscape in Singaporean schools. The PERI Committee also agreed with views from members of the public who felt the need to shift towards a less examination-oriented culture, particularly at lower primary levels, to help students enjoy learning across all subjects. The PERI Committee thus proposed that internal school-based assessment could afford to shift some focus away from summative assessment to a more formative one so that the system could be better balanced to help students benefit from constructive feedback in both academic and non-academic subjects (PERI, 2009). In particular, the PERI Committee suggested that a ‘Holistic Assessment’ policy be established to look into the recommendations listed in Table 1. TAB L E 1 ■ List of PERI’s recommendations of ‘Holistic Assessment’ (PERI, 2009) ‘Holistic Assessment’ Recommendations (PERI, 2009) 1. Encourage schools to move away from a strong emphasis on examinations in Primary 1 and 2, and explore the use of a variety of bite-sized assessments to help build pupils’ confidence and desire to learn. 2. Place less importance on end-of-semester examinations in Primary 1 in order to facilitate pupils’ transitions from preschool to primary school. Primary 2 pupils could be slowly eased into taking examinations. 3. Equip teachers to use rubrics to assess and provide pupils with richer and more holistic feedback on their development and skills acquisition in academic and non-academic areas. 4. Encourage primary schools to provide parents with a more comprehensive ‘Holistic Development Profile’ that captures a fuller picture of their child’s progress and learning throughout the year. 5. Continue to provide clear guidelines for the learning outcomes for each subject at the end of every level, to facilitate teachers’ design of appropriate assessment tasks and ensure students’ continued mastery of foundational skills. 6. Develop a system to assess the schools’ ability to develop their pupils in academic and non-academic areas and to provide a more holistic education. M01_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH01.indd 2 15/07/14 8:44 PM Chapter 1 Setting the Context of Assessment and Learning in Schools 3 The PERI Committee recognised that while the high-stakes nature of national examinations could have unintended consequences for teaching and learning, such as the narrowing of curricula and teaching, focusing only on a small set of limited learning outcomes, they continue to play an important role in Singapore’s education system. The other review committee shared a similar view in that rather than revamping the national examination system at this point, schools and teachers could take measured steps to build up capacity for more effective school-based assessment, which could better complement the national examinations, providing students with a more comprehensive learning experience. The recommendations for changes in assessment beyond lower primary involved helping schools and teachers to think about the possibilities of ‘Balanced Assessment’, involving the use of practices that continue to support students to achieve high academic standards while widening their learning opportunities. Some of the important recommendations included the following: 1. Both ‘Assessment for/of Learning’ should be positioned as an integral part of good teaching practices. The appraisal of teachers and schools would be amended to encourage schools and teachers to explore more, in particular the use of ‘Assessment for Learning’. 2. Help teachers to use a broad range of assessment instruments, beyond traditional standardised tests, to assess students on a wider set of learning outcomes such as twentyfirst-century competencies and skills. Help teachers to identify a broader set of learning outcomes, beyond cognitive achievements. 3. Work closely with existing expertise in the National Institute of Education (NIE) to design professional development and learning experiences of effective classroom assessment for teachers, school leaders and MOE officers. In looking at the new Holistic and Balanced Assessment initiatives and the introduction of terms like Assessment for Learning and formative assessment, Singaporean teachers have the opportunity to revisit their understanding of assessment and, in particular, to understand it more broadly, beyond traditional paper-and-pencil tests to a set of assessment strategies to support students’ learning. From a devolutionary perspective of policy-making, the educational goals of interpreting Holistic and Balanced Assessment may not yet be tightly defined but rather invite teachers for exploration, sense-making and reflection. However, it can also be said that the goals are diffuse in their meaning. What do Holistic and Balanced Assessment actually mean in classrooms? How holistic and balanced can assessment be? How different or similar are they? Are they referring to the same educational goals? These questions raise concerns that Holistic and Balanced Assessment practices could be more explicitly defined for different subject teachers of different grade levels of students. In clarifying these concerns and questions, Holistic or Balanced Assessment can become a useful goalpost for Singaporean teachers in striving to know and enact new and relevant assessment practices. This constitutes a redefinition of assessment literacy for many Singaporean teachers in the coming age. At the same time, in 2009 the MOE disseminated widely the twenty-first-century competencies framework to all Singaporean schools. This directs further attention to the enhancement of students’ learning through holistic education in this new age of a fast-changing and highly connected world. The role of education to build students’ twenty-first-century competencies needs to be anchored also on strong values and character, ushering a new educational phase of a student-centric, value-based education (Heng, 2011). This new phase of Singaporean education brings a sharper focus to holistic education although it has also raised further questions about how assessment can and should keep pace with curricular and pedagogical changes. M01_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH01.indd 3 15/07/14 8:44 PM 4 Chapter 1 Setting the Context of Assessment and Learning in Schools Given the measured changes in the education scene in Singapore, particularly the growing significance of identifying new assessment literacy for twenty-first-century teachers, NIE has reviewed and defined a set of assessment literacy outcome frameworks to guide the work in teacher education in assessment. The framework consists of key elements of assessment competencies for effective teaching and learning in schools. The seven competencies are the following: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Designing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions; Planning assessments as part of an effective teaching–learning process; Understanding and communicating the goals and criteria of assessments; Developing the capacity for self-assessment for reflective and self-directed learning; Providing feedback to learners to improve; Administering, scoring and interpreting the results effectively; Recognising unethical, illegal and inappropriate assessment practices. The framework of these seven competencies has been used as a guide by the NIE and MOE to identify knowledge, skills and values of assessment that all teachers should possess and hone as part of their professional journey. The framework supports the concept of learning as a continuum that begins in an initial teacher-preparation setting and continues with lifelong professional education and experience. The framework adopts Boud’s (2000) argument for sustainable assessment for learning in the long term as its central and unifying concept. This implies that assessment literacy must be understood in terms of its impact beyond NIE training. Albeit that many uncertainties may need to be addressed in the coming years, we recognise that Singapore is already widely reputed to have an education system that is at the forefront of development. For instance, the Singaporean education system boasted a successful public assessment system structured around national examination, which is systematically introduced within a school system that supports quality teaching and learning (Clarke, 2012). More recently, it is considered to have advanced assessment features focused on reforms and practices that prioritise the classroom, and teachers and students as key actors in assessment (Darling-Hammond & Wentworth, 2010). Recognition that the most powerful form of assessment, when done effectively, is that carried out by teachers and students in the course of their daily classroom activities, signals an affirmation of policy commitment to support Singaporean teachers in their assessment work. PURPOSE OF BOOK This book attempts to help teachers to learn about the complexity of their day-to-day assessment environment and work. The authors believe that teachers today continue to be besieged by a range of assessment responsibilities, which require continual learning and training, if not clarification. While there have been many attempts to synthesise assessment literature in different fields in a meaningful way (e.g., Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001), we recognise there is a need to help teachers to read about such a synthesis in an accessible, yet substantive way. This book seeks to introduce a formal body of knowledge, skills and values of assessment that we advocate all teachers (including pre-service teachers) should know and discuss widely. Each chapter includes discussion questions or tasks, and further key readings that readers can study, if they choose to pursue deeper insight into the topic. Some of the chapters are also useful for teachers who are pursuing a higher degree or executive position in education. We hope this book will serve as one of the key resources that teachers, educators, policy-makers and researchers can refer to in making sense of assessment and learning in schools. M01_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH01.indd 4 15/07/14 8:44 PM Chapter 1 Setting the Context of Assessment and Learning in Schools 5 REFLECTION/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What does ‘assessment’ mean to you? 2. What are the other term(s) that you use in your school/classroom context that are similar to ‘assessment’? Why do you think there are so many similar, yet different terms for ‘assessment’? 3. What are the assessment activities in your classroom? KEY READINGS McMillan, J. H. (2013). Why we need research on classroom assessment. In J. H. MacMillan (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. PERI. (2009). Report of the primary education review and implementation committee. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271–286. REFERENCES Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. Clarke, M. (2012). What matters most for student assessment systems: A framework paper. SABER–Student Assessment Working Paper (1). World Bank. Coffman, W. E. (1985). Testing in the schools: A historical perspective. Paper presented at the annual invitational conference of the Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles. Darling-Hammond, L., & Wentworth, L. (2010). Benchmarking learning systems: Student performance assessment in international context. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, Stanford University, CA. Heng, S. K. (2011). Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Kiat, Minister for Education. Presented at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Russell, M. K., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Scates, D. E. (1943). Differences between measurement criteria of pure scientists and of classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 37, 1−13. M01_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH01.indd 5 15/07/14 8:44 PM M01_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH01.indd 6 15/07/14 8:44 PM