Implementation of FA in the Classroom: The Need for Theories of Learning and

A final criticism of FA that has deep implications for my study is that the learning gap metaphor fails to account for the learner’s role within the complex feedback learning process by reducing this process to a series of steps directed to students which they then fulfil (Dann, 2014; Hargreaves, 2011; Perrenoud, 1998; Torrance, 2012). This has led to the recognition that FA needs to account for

student learning and student motivation (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Baird et al., 2017; Black & Wiliam, 2006; Wiliam, 2017). As Dann (2014) states, a fully articulated theory of FA “requires a more in-depth understanding of learning and the learner rather than merely recognising a communicative feedback loop within assessment” (p. 154). This lack of learning and motivational theory has resulted in teachers implementing FA processes according to pre-existing behaviouristic beliefs (Baird et al., 2017; Pryor & Crossouard, 2008; Torrance & Pryor, 2001), an issue I will now explore in more depth. When discussing FA reform studies in the following paragraphs, I have used research from the U.S. where possible to match the American international school setting of this study as closely as possible. However, because FA reform in the U.S. has been limited to a degree by the movement towards high-stakes accountability tests (Flaitz, 2011), I have also pulled from studies done in international contexts which have theoretical generalizability for my study.

To understand the fidelity of implementation issues with FA, it is helpful to reconsider the deep shift that FA represents. FA reform has implications across teaching and learning (Black, 2015; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Earl, 2003). Students are at the heart of the FA gap metaphor as active, self-determined agents in the construction of their own learning who ultimately take the steps to close their learning gaps (Dann, 2014; Harlen, 2006; Taras, 2009; Wylie & Lyon, 2015). The teacher’s role shifts from being the centre point in traditional teaching models to being more of a coach on the side. This includes helping students gain knowledge, ownership and autonomy of assessment processes such as self- assessment with rubrics, with the aim of students closing their learning gaps (Cizek, 2010; Sadler, 1989, 1998; Shepard, 2000).

While FA may be theorized in this way, the work of Torrance, Pryor and Crossouard provides examples of the different forms that FA takes in

primary schools in England and identified two main categories of classroom FA. Convergent assessment was behaviourist in nature and done by teachers to find out if students had learned predetermined objectives. Teachers held power through interactions formed by teachers initiating, students responding, and teachers evaluating (I-R-E). Divergent assessment, on the other hand, focused on what students understood and could do, and then used open-ended questions to push their thinking further. In this type of FA, students shared power and ownership of the learning process with the teacher and conversation was open and collaborative. This shared ownership created a space for student self- assessment which was not present with convergent FA.

In the work that followed, Torrance, Pryor and Crossouard have been careful to avoid presenting convergent and divergent assessment as a

dichotomy, instead considering it as a continuum which teachers must move between during FA processes (Pryor & Crossouard, 2008). However, they found that convergent assessment was the dominant FA model in practice with some teachers viewing learning through transmission models, and teachers were often weak with divergent assessment practices (Pryor & Crossouard, 2008; Torrance & Pryor, 2001). Torrance, Pryor and Crossouard’s findings that FA is typically implemented in behaviouristic ways which don’t allow for the transfer of evaluative power to students is supported by other studies I will now discuss which have found that teachers struggle within FA reform to implement self- assessment processes.

Wylie & Lyon (2015) studied the breadth and quality of teacher FA reform using essential FA practices derived from Black & Wiliam (Black et al., 2003; Black & Wiliam, 1998): shared criteria, developing class talk and questioning, appropriate feedback, peer-assessment and self-assessment. Their two-year study included a sample of 202 high school math and science teachers from across the U.S. Participants attended an introductory two-day workshop where

they learned about FA research, participated in activities to develop

understanding of the five FA strategies and concluded by formulating plans to implement the reform into their practice. There was a follow-up two-day workshop for teacher leaders on sustaining FA communities, and these teacher leaders then led monthly meetings with participants to reflect on and continue to develop FA practices. Wylie & Lyon found that in general, teachers were not able to integrate all five of the strategies in their practice, or to integrate critical aspects of the strategies. More specifically, they found that teachers’ use of self- assessment (lumped together with metacognition and reflection) did not change and was rarely used in comparison to the other FA strategies over the two years of the study, despite training sessions. They concluded that teachers may need more support to integrate self-assessment into their practices, and more

generally emphasized the amount of time and teacher support required to implement FA reform.

Similar to Wylie & Lyon’s study, Lysaght & O’Leary (2013) also measured teachers’ use of Black & Wiliam’s five key FA characteristics by surveying 476 teachers across Ireland. It should be noted that within the study it is unclear what FA professional development these participants had undertaken, if any at all. They found that self-assessment practices (lumped together with peer- assessment) were only “sporadically” used, the most infrequent out of the other FA practices. Caution is warranted in the interpretation of these studies because although generally similar, both studies mixed Black & Wiliam’s five essential elements together in different ways and included different techniques for each of the larger categories. While Black & Wiliam’s five FA strategies may represent a positive step towards the concretization of FA practices, there is still much variation in how they can be implemented.

The issue is further complicated because the existing assessment practices of some teachers are engrained and rigid (Earl, 2003). A survey of 404 teachers

across Canada and the United States suggested that teachers hold established views on assessment that may be hard to change once they enter the teaching profession (DeLuca, Valiquette, Coombs, LaPointe-McEwan, & Luhanga, 2018). Without a thorough examination of these beliefs, it is probable that proposed FA processes which require far-reaching changes to teaching and learning

(Swaffield, 2011) will come into conflict with pre-established teacher beliefs and will fundamentally warp the shape of FA reform (Lysaght & O’Leary, 2013), resulting in FA implementation that does not account for the active role of students within learning (Hayward, 2015).

These findings from research on the implementation of FA show the stark contrast in the forms that FA implementation can take in practice. They also suggest that some teachers struggle to get to FA as it has been conceptualized within this chapter with the development of student self-assessment with rubrics. I will now follow a long line of FA researchers who have used Vygotsky’s theory of the socially mediated nature of learning to account for students’ roles in FA (Baird et al., 2017; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Shepard, 2000; Torrance & Pryor, 2001).