Assessment for learning (AFL), also known as formative feedback, has taken an increasingly prominent place in the primary classroom since the 1990’s (Clarke, 2005). The essential element of AFL is that it focuses on eliciting pupils’ current understanding of the learning taking place at a deeper level than that merely performance based assessment. This is then used to inform future planning to address misconceptions or gaps in their knowledge, whilst giving the pupils’ more independence and understanding over their own learning needs (Hondrich et al 2016; Panayiotis and Mary, 2014; Clarke, 2005). Clarke (2005) aligns herself with the framework established by Black and William (1998) which proposes formative assessment as the effective use of:
- Sharing learning goals
- Effective questioning
- Self and peer evaluation
- Effective feedback (Black and William, 1998; Clarke, 2005, p5)
Courtesy of Flickr. Link here
However, research has found embedding these practices effectively and consistently within teaching can pose a challenge for teachers (Hondrich et al 2016; Panayiotis and Mary, 2014)
Whilst on placement I saw evidence of all the above elements of AFL taking place within my classroom.
Learning goals/objectives were shared with the class for every lesson followed by a set of success criteria. These were called WAGOLLs (what a good one looks like). The teacher would go through these with the class whilst modelling the activity, such as a group write, before their independent tasks. They would also encourage the children to feedback whether they thought they had met the criteria during mini plenaries, asking them to ‘wagoll’ in their seats if they felt they has achieved each one. This allowed the teacher to quickly gauge the differing progress of the class and highlight those they made need more support. However, I would argue that the effectiveness of this was inconsistent as often the children merely enjoyed being able to have a wiggle in their seats and it did not reflect their understanding or achievement. I was working with a mixed year 1/2 class and this behaviour was noticeably more prevalent in the year 1 pupils.
However, the teacher would use peer talk with self/peer evaluation during the input and plenary as a tool to address this issue. The children were given ‘learning partners’ each term which paired a year 1 child with a year 2 child. I believe this to be a useful tool as it allowed social learning to take place, with the year 2 child often modelling the desired learning behaviour to their year 1 partner. I observed the effectiveness of this within my own teaching through the difference in responses I received when I used peer talk before eliciting a response to my question. As supported by the theories of Clarke (2005), the occasions I utilised this technique provided much more thought out and articulate responses, allowing me to gauge their level of understanding much more effectively.
The teacher would often ask some of the children to share their work with the class. They would then either explain how they thought they had met the WAGOLLs or the class would offer feedback. This can pose a challenge as the children might take their peer’s evaluation negatively. However, I did not observe this within my class as the culture of sharing and learning from each other and our mistakes was clearly embedded. It was clear the children felt safe and secure following this structure.
The WAGOLLs produced by my class
I included the use of these strategies within my own teaching, however thus far the WAGOLLs I had observed had been created by the teacher rather than the children themselves. Clarke (2005, p52) states that,
“children need to be involved in the generation of success criteria in order to most effectively own and access them”.
Therefore, for the sequence of literacy lessons I taught, I planned the lessons to enact this philosophy. I believe it was effective as more children (especially in year 1) had a clearer understanding of what was expected from them, which was reflected in the conversations they shared and the work they produced.
During my placement I could see that the use of AFL was clearly embedded in the design of the teaching within my classroom. However as I continue on my path to become a teacher I must be aware that every group of children may respond differently to AFL techniques and simply using them does not ensure their success in improving attainment (Bennett, 2011). However Spendlove (2009) argues that increased attainment falls second to promoting the love for learning and the development of independent learning AFL promotes. Either way, AFL is something that needs to be carefully planned with purpose to be successful (Clarke, 2005) and I aim to develop my ability to do this successfully throughout my next placement.
References:
Bennet, R,E. (2011) Formative assessment: a critical review, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18:1, 5-25
Black and William (1998) quoted in Clarke, S. 2005. Formative Assessment in Action, London: Hodder Education
Clarke, S. 2005. Formative Assessment in Action, London: Hodder Education
Hondrich A, L.,Hertel, S., Adl-Amini, K., Klieme, E. (2016) Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23:3, 353-376
Panayiotis, A., Mary, J. (2014) Exploring formative assessment in primary school classrooms: Developing a framework of actions and strategies, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26:153–176
Spendlove, D. (2009) Putting Assessment for Learning into Practice, London: Continuum