The assessment of practicum requires alternative approaches to traditional norm-referenced testing, in which “predetermined levels of standards of performance become the basis for comparison in order to provide explicit information as to what students can and cannot do” (Maclellan, 2004, p. 317). While standardized testing has been the dominant model in higher education, such measures are less appropriate for assessment in professional contexts, such as practicum in teacher education. Alternative assessment models may be identified as criteria- based, performance-based, or competency-based, but all are centred around the principle that assessment measures are made by comparing the practice of the student to pre-determined criteria. Criteria are the expressed attributes, indicators or rules that are established to guide judgement and assessment decision making (Sadler, 2005). Messick (1994) argues that these assessment approaches are becoming increasing popular as they offer the opportunity for authentic and direct assessment of practice. Criteria-based approaches to assessment have been widely accepted in professional domains, for the potential to directly examine practice in meaningful and context relevant settings, such as practicum. Brown (2008) argues that a criteria-based approach to assessment “allows assessment to be more focused; is more equitable; clarifies expectations for all stakeholders; ascribes expectations for the
developmental progression of teaching practice; allocates responsibilities; prompts useful, supportive and focussed feedback; and provides a framework for self-assessment” (p. 97).
The shift towards competency- and performance-based assessment must be seen within the social and political climate. As Harrison states, “teaching and teacher education have become political enterprises both value-laden and socially constructed” (2007, p. 324). Haigh, Ell and Mackisack (2013) acknowledge that the development of teaching competencies and standards is a world-wide phenomenon, embedded in a much wider socio-economic-political context. Performance-based assessment is often required within a market economy that seeks proven
outcomes to justify the expenditure of the education dollar and reassurance that there is a return from the investment in teacher education (Cameron & Baker, 2004; Cochran-Smith, 2005).
Stakeholders associated with professional programmes want reassurance as to the quality of practice demonstrated, acknowledging that not all graduates of a specific programme will demonstrate uniform qualities that will ensure success in their role as a teacher;
“accountability in the preparation of teachers is a topic of great concern to all stakeholders in the process” (Autry, Lee & Fox, 2009, p. 141). Traditionally, completion of a recognised teacher education programme was seen as sufficient evidence of teaching competency and readiness for the profession. Competency was judged on the basis of accredited programme content – the inputs of the institution. There is now a shift towards performance, or competency based approaches (Tinning, 2000), in which the evaluation is made on the student teacher’s ability to demonstrate specific skills or competencies in authentic settings (Adams & Wolf, 2008) – an outputs oriented approach.
Brown (2008) reported an evaluation of a criterion-based assessment rubric for practicum at the University of Tasmania. Participants, including 30 student teachers and 40 associate teachers across early childhood, primary and secondary schools, were very supportive and positive regarding the introduction of the rubric, and the rubric was seen as a valuable tool for providing both formative and summative assessment information. Of note was that both associate teachers and teacher educators found that having defined expectations and standards for the practicum was most valuable when the student teacher was not meeting them, and was thereby at risk of failing the practicum. Brown (2008) argues these standards were helpful in being able to identify and articulate the areas requiring further development, and made the feedback less personal and therefore easier to deliver. Having clear
expectations, as expressed in the rubric, was also seen to support student teachers in giving them a road map for their future development. This view suggests that professional growth is developmental in nature, with progressive steps of competence to be attained, building upon previous skills. The developmental nature of student development was highlighted in Field’s (2002) study in Canada, in which eight teacher educators participated in a focus group and ninety student teachers completed a survey. Findings indicated that teacher educators and student teachers saw the practicum as progressive over the duration of the programme, with students in the latter part of the qualification demonstrating greater self-confidence and self- evaluation, with greater attention to the learning of the children, rather than their own needs.
Veal and Rikard (1998, p. 21), in trialling performance assessment in the teaching context of secondary physical education teachers observed that:
When assessors were asked to write an interpretive summary of a performance, they took more notes in viewing and reading it and used those notes as a basis for their interpretation. When the focus was on rating, however, they tended to look for features of the performance that were similar to or different from the general description contained in the rubrics, and they decided on the ratings very early on, often before they had viewed or read the entire performance.
This finding alerts teacher education providers to the importance of allowing more open interpretation of teaching practices, rather than a narrow focus on predefined characteristics. However, this calls to attention issues of consistency, observer bias, reliability and validity. These tensions are complex and not easily resolved. For performance- or competence-based assessment to be valid it must be informed and guided by the body of research that identifies effective teaching practices, and reflect the mission of the educational institution (Pullman, 1995).
Competency-based assessment, while purporting to be a more authentic and reliable form of evaluating teaching practice (Jönsson & Mattsson, 2011) is not without its critics. The greatest challenge of criteria-based assessment in teacher education is the contention that teaching is complex and problematic (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000), and “what constitutes practice is not self-evident” (Boud, 2009, p. 30). Practices associated with academic and professional disciplines are both socially and culturally constructed, defined and contested, and often lack transparency and clear articulation to participants (Haigh & Ell, 2014). To pose the question, ‘what makes a good early childhood teacher?’ yields a multiplicity of stakeholder viewpoints. It further raises numerous issues: in what context? For which children? To meet which needs? Practice becomes meaningful within the specific context in which it is enacted, requiring assessment practices that can attend to the specific nature and context of a given situation, over and above a generalised set of specified actions, or a focus on technical competence (Watson & Robbins, 2008). Those who determine the criteria also face the dilemma that for every competence included there will be another that could be argued is just as critical, and stakeholders may have competing agendas.
Critics of competency based assessment are concerned about the potential of prescribed standards to reduce the complexity of teaching practice to a set of ‘tick the box’ behaviours (Bannink, 2009; Harrison, 2007) and mask the subtleties of teaching. Coll, Taylor and Grainger (2002, p. 5) argue strongly against the inappropriate application of science-oriented methods which “contribute to the development of assessment measures, which insist on measurable outcomes and technical competencies, devaluing the wisdom, intuition or artistry of practice”. An assessment approach that shifts from technical skills to the deeper, more complex aspects of teaching requires critical evaluation of the factors considered in assessing competence. In the quest for more authentic assessment data, assessment measures are widened to consider concepts of teaching qualities, responsive practice, attitudes, attributes and dispositions of
effective teachers. However, reaching consensus on a fixed set of demonstrable actions that exemplify desired teaching practices becomes very challenging within a dynamic context of relational, cultural, social and political influences. Outcomes in such a context become negotiable and contested, and criteria can be subject to change as a result of shifting political policy and externally guided criteria (Coll, Taylor & Grainger, 2002), such as the New Zealand Teachers Council Graduating Teacher Standards (NZTC, 2007).
Criterion-based assessment also calls into question the reliability of assessor ratings. Veal and Rikard (1998, p. 21) argue that “the danger exists that the assessors will attend to the most visible or superficial characteristics of the performance while neglecting the specific patterns and connections that give it meaning and integrity”. Coll, Taylor and Grainger (2002) further argue that assessors need to be aware of attending more to areas of technical competence, rather than higher level teaching skills and understanding.
Adams and Wolf (2008) report on a five year evaluation of the implementation of a
performance based approach in the early childhood education programme at the University of Colorado - Denver. They state that the move to performance based assessments significantly increased the information that they were able to gather about the skills and competencies of student teachers, but also acknowledge that they “required more time and effort on the part of the university practicum supervisors, site supervisors and the teacher candidates
themselves” (Adams & Wolf, 2008, p. 17). Whilst those responsible for assessment may want to see more authentic practices followed, this requires scope to be made within their
workload, as well as the financial commitment of the institution to allow more time to spend with the student teacher (White, 2009), as well as opportunities for induction, professional development and moderation. Ingvarson (2005, p. 10) states that “current levels of funding for teacher education do not make it easy for university staff to provide feedback to students
about their developing practice” and yet we know that feedback based on authentic assessment is a critical component of effective teacher education. Veal and Rikard (1998, p. 16) also explain that “clearly articulating and documenting the evidence that underlies [assessment] decisions is expensive”.