Monitoring layer (M)

6.4.1 DBR Phase 1M - Concern for consistency

In DBR Phase 1 summative assessment appeared almost synonymous with levelling. Staff development, in the form of supporting documentation or staff meetings, was focused on gaining confidence with levelling, as described in Extract 6.8.

During the period of the case study the National Curriculum levelling system was removed and in 2013 teachers knew this change would be coming, which perhaps led to a search for possible alternative support with criteria. The SL describes an increasing list of supportive

Extract 6.8

Teachers have been using a range of strategies for summative assessment of levels, including QC criteria, Rising Stars materials, Kent trust - and others which give useful

indicators that I presented at a staff meeting and are listed on our server and copies in a file I presented to staff. Teachers now assign a level at the end of each unit taught.

172

structures (‘QC criteria, Rising Stars materials, Kent trust - and others’) to support

summative assessments.

The increasing list of supportive structures raises questions of manageability for staff to use all of these collected resources, together with possible issues with reliability if there are differences between the criteria for each. Consistency was noted by the SL as a key issue at the first TAPS cluster day (October 2013) and in interview the SL commented that: “core principles for assessment in science have been established but there is difference in practice amongst classes” (November 2013, B10-Ph1). Concerns regarding ‘consistency’ as an issue was predominantly coded in DBR Phase 1 (12 out of 15 occurrences), suggesting it became less of a concern later in the case record. There could have been a change in the meaning of consistency for the school over the case study period: at the beginning a consistent

assessment approach appeared to mean doing the same, whilst Harrison and Howard (2009) argue that it is: ‘consistency of principle not uniformity of practice’, thus explicitly principled assessment could enable a range of practice to be ‘consistent’ (Davies et al. 2014). It is not clear from this data how the school or SL viewed the relationship between consistency and reliability; this wider issue will be discussed in Chapter 7.

6.4.2 DBR Phase 2M - Levelling and moderation

One of the reasons cited for the removal of levels was that it led to the labelling of children who began to speak of themselves as a ‘level 4c’ (Boaler 2015). The SL was keen to stress in the post lesson discussion that although she was using levels to guide her expectations for what she was looking for in the lesson, the level numbers were not shared with the children. The SL also spent time in a moderation staff meeting discussing the differences between assigning a level to a piece of work and assigning a level to a child:

173 The distinction between work and child made here by the SL, could be aligned to the two different conceptualisations of summative assessment which were noted in Chapter 5: making a snapshot judgement of narrow attainment by levelling a piece of work from one context, or making a summary judgement of broader attainment by levelling a range of work from a child across numerous contexts. For the snapshot judgement, the SL

emphasises the importance of ‘context’, suggesting that it is ‘useful to see planning’, ‘know types of support’ and ‘observe contributions’. This in-depth knowledge of the context raises questions for the production of exemplification materials to support the implementation of the TAPS pyramid, which would be unable to capture this level of detail in a concise format. The SL also emphasises the importance of teacher knowledge and understanding of the subject ‘progression’, ‘curriculum’ and assessment indicators. This suggests a high level of pedagogical subject knowledge, which less experienced teachers may not have, raising questions regarding whether confidence in teacher assessment is a realistic expectation for

Extract 6.9

What’s required to level a piece of work?

1. Useful to see planning. 2. Useful to know the context.

3. Need to know what level/type of support might have affected outcomes. 4. Useful to capture verbal comments during sessions.

5. Useful to observe contributions and learning in sessions. 6. Clear assessment criteria. Agreed sources.

7. Good knowledge of curriculum content. 8. Good knowledge of level descriptors.

9. Good understanding of progression in skills and knowledge.

What’s required to level a child?

1. Evidence – as above – from a greater range of examples. 2. Development can be seen over time.

3. Teacher’s records show progress.

4. Listening to children ‘talk science’ and gauging breadth of thinking skills. 5. Does a child’s interest in a subject make a difference?

174 those who are newly qualified, since assessment competence needs a combination of skills (Black et al. 2011).

The summary judgement is more focused on ‘development over time’ using ‘a greater range of examples’, which could support validity of assessment across contexts and instruments; more expansive rather than prescriptive assessment (Lum 2015). ‘Evidence’ and ‘teacher records’ are listed, but pupil talk and thinking skills are also mentioned, perhaps suggesting a widening of what is considered appropriate assessment information on which to form a judgement.

The moderation meeting provided dedicated time for the teachers to discuss how they were making their judgements (B40-Ph2 ). It was not a simple checking of levels assigned to individual pieces of work, the aim appeared to be more to develop the assessment literacy of the staff, to make explicit the tacit knowledge of how to make judgements (Sharpe 2004).

6.4.3 DBR Phase 3M - Range of information

In DBR Phase 3, the SL describes the supportive nature of moderation and ‘sharing practice sessions’ in developing confidence in teacher judgements:

There still appears to be a tension with regards to consistency, how much to stick to the ‘framework’ and how much ‘freedom for teachers to try what works’, indicating a rigidity dimension to teacher conceptualisations of assessment. However, the ‘sharing and discussing with each other about what is being tried’ suggests a process of reflection and

Extract 6.10

We have moved from ‘each teacher doing their own thing’ to having basic frameworks, resources, levelling references and expectations in place – but with the freedom for teachers to try what works within a framework of sharing and discussing with each other about what is being tried. Moderating sessions and sharing practice sessions keep the progress moving forward – with the aim of teachers being confident in their judgements because a) they know their curriculum expectations and b) they know what meeting them ‘looks like’.

175 evaluation of strategies to support teachers to actively construct their practice (Sharpe 2004). Such dialogue could support development at both an individual and whole school level (Stoll et al. 2006).

In 2013 a large number of published materials were listed to provide structure or criteria in support of summative assessment (Extract 6.4, B3-Ph1). By 2016 the SL advocates a different approach: summative assessment which is not described separately, or based on separate materials, but is ongoing and informed by formative assessment (Extract 6.11).

The SL suggests that ‘consistent’, ‘reliable’ judgements have been supported by including the assessment criteria at ‘the planning stage’, assessment is part of teaching and this enables ‘frequent’ assessment opportunities. This appears to enhance validity, with

multiple and ‘varied’ assessments able to capture a broader range of the curriculum than is possible in end of term snapshots, but the question remains as to whether the frequent assessments are detrimental to the formative purpose. Enacted practice of ‘formative to summative’ assessment will be explored further in the next section.

Extract 6.11

Outcomes for our school [related to reliability]:

• Understanding that useful, reliable assessment opportunities come from good, consistent and varied science teaching where opportunities to assess against the requirements are frequent.

• Assessment criteria is built into the planning stage – with learning objectives and success criteria made explicit to the children.

• Massive reduction in reliance on or requests for summative testing materials / papers to validate, confirm or substitute for teacher’s judgements.

• Much discussion about what assessment is – several members of staff participated in TAPS sessions. All sessions fed-back at staff meetings.

176

6.4.4 Summary of changes at monitoring layer

Key features of changes in assessment practice in this layer:

 An early concern with consistency and standardisation of practices, which led to cross-checking with multiple structures. A later tension between ‘sticking to the framework’ and allowing more ‘freedom’ indicated a rigidity dimension to teacher conceptualisations of assessment.

 Moderation discussions supported teacher assessment literacy and indicated two contrasting conceptualisations of summative assessment, in line with findings in Chapter 5, which were enacted as: levelling of work (snapshot) and assigning a level to a pupil (summary).

 There was an ongoing attempt to balance validity and reliability, with recognition of the importance of a range of information for valid assessment, whilst development of reliability through use of assessment criteria throughout teaching and learning; supporting a shared understanding and assessment literacy.