Teacher notices gap

(current versus desired standards) Teacher interprets gaps (current versus desired standards) 3. Feedback activities and strategies to close the gap 1. Teacher and

students set goals

Formative Assessment and Feedback

Teacher

the assessment process, and argues that teachers’ assessment acts must provide the students opportunities to acquire knowledge:

Formative assessment does make a difference, and it is the quality, not just the quantity, of feedback that merits our closest attention. By quality of feedback we now realise we have to understand not just the technical structure of the feedback (such as accuracy, comprehensiveness, and appropriateness) but also its accessibility to the learner (as a communication), its catalytic and coaching value, its ability to inspire confidence and hope (p. 84).

In Sadler’s (2007) response to assessment practice, nearly a decade later, he identifies the fact that teachers use the terms ‘criteria’ and ‘standards’ interchangeably in their discourse (p. 388). He himself defines criteria as properties or characteristics, or a fixed level above a desired designation, that when achieved be rewarded. Standard he refers to the particular required quality or level of quality (Sadler, 1987). It is therefore important teachers have clarity regarding criteria and standards the students are aiming to achieve. Criteria in an assessment task is ideally referred to students and pre-set. Sadler (1989) identified over 50 published criteria for written composition.

His argument stems from the understanding that learning is achieved when students are able to do on demand something they could not do before, and to do it independently, and well (Sadler, 2009a). He refers to the importance of teachers framing their feedback statements with descriptive statements based on the students’ production, such as specific features in their work, pre-established criteria, and suggestion for improvement in comparison to their current performance. Sadler’s formative assessment theorisation has led to significant research being undertaken and in many cases his theory being utilised in that process. Many researchers have used his theoretical position as guide and reference in their projects (for example Black & Wiliam, 2006; Gipps, McCallum & Hargreaves, 2000; Torrance & Pryor, 1998; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996)).

As already discussed Tunstall and Gipps’ (1996) research in primary schools concentrated on the characteristics of effective feedback and created a typology grounded in classroom practice. According to their typology, feedback can be evaluative (judgemental) or descriptive (related to achievement/improvement). They applied Sadler’s (1989) and Crooks (1988) work as frameworks to analyse and present their key findings. They identified eight types of feedback that teachers employed in their classroom practice to support learning, including Sadler’s (1989) theory of student work compared against criteria; teacher/student partnerships in assessment; the use of exemplars, and the providing of opportunities for self-monitoring, all

informed by the categorisation of evaluative and descriptive feedback types. References and significant attention to the typology have since been made by policymakers and researchers.

Additionally, as Sadler argues, and as also discussed earlier in this chapter, one of the key aspects of formative feedback is sharing learning intentions and goals with students. Shirley Clarke, an educational consultant from the United Kingdom, developed practical formative assessment strategies for teachers to employ in the classroom on this basis. Clarke (2000) utilised Sadler’s concept of communicating standards by developing strategies, such as sharing learning intentions with students, and introduced the idea of success criteria being made explicit to students. A publication for teachers by Clarke (2001) was distributed widely throughout New Zealand through teacher professional development projects such as (AToL). This was specifically written for primary, intermediate, and secondary school teachers. Another edition of her work, Unlocking Formative Assessment (Clarke et al., 2003) has been a resource subscribed to by schools

In the United Kingdom, Torrance and Pryor (1998) undertook an empirical project to identify formative assessment practices in the infant classroom. They developed a conceptual framework, identifying convergent and divergent formative assessment, constructing the findings utilising Sadler’s (1989) theoretical concepts and proposed classroom practices. Their conceptual framework illustrates the potential of formative assessment to enhance learning.

Another significant project is the King’s-Medway-Oxfordshire Formative Assessment Project (Black et al., 2003), focussed on teacher professional development in the United Kingdom. The project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, put into practice effective formative assessment strategies. The team of researchers incorporated a number of formative assessment strategies into teachers’ professional classroom practice. They worked with 48 secondary school teachers in developing students’ understanding of quality work, and the development and modification of criteria. These two studies in the United Kingdom elicited global attention on formative feedback practices.

The adoption of Sadler’s theory, the reporting of findings that support his assertions, and the explanations and verification of the research and the studies grounding the theory into classroom practices offer evidence of trustworthiness of the theory (Neuman, 2003). Sadler’s (1989) work has shaped and redefined teacher and student roles in the formative assessment and feedback process in practice. Influential scholars in the field of assessment respect Sadler’s theoretical exposition of formative

assessment and feedback. It is thus reasonable to assume that his theoretical framework is a useful and functional explanatory tool for analysis of data; it was, and is, trustworthy. Teachers in New Zealand have been encouraged to implement formative assessment and feedback strategies that have been grounded by Sadler’s work. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that some concepts from Sadler’s theory would be present in teacher’s reported beliefs and their teaching strategies. Sadler’s (1989) theoretical framework is the most suitable theory to be intertwined with the data I have sought out, and the most likely to provide a comprehensive analysis, specifically on teacher’s beliefs regarding formative assessment and feedback, teacher and student roles in the classroom, and their feedback strategies in supporting students to identify gaps in their performance and to work towards closing the gaps.

Limitations of Sadler’s theory for exploring formative assessment and feedback There are a number of limitations to Sadler’s theorisation of formative assessment and feedback when applied to the context of teaching written language in the primary classroom. Despite the fact the theory provides useful explanation of effective formative assessment and feedback strategies to enhance students’ learning, and a method by which analysis might move from description to explanation, Sadler’s theory has been subjected to criticism based on its limitations when theorising students’ self-regulations. One limitation, identified by Boekaerts (2006), is on the self- regulation as a process. Self-regulation targets the effects, cognition, and actions as well the setting by which the learning goals are addressed, and proposes a dual processing theory. Students’ participation in a learning activity involves perception of the task and the instructional context, activation of domain-specific knowledge and metacognitive strategies related to the task, and motivational beliefs in students, which include capacity, interest and effort during the self-regulation process. These elements are not addressed in Sadler’s theory of effective formative practice on students’ participation as ‘insiders’ in their learning, limiting the conception of success when students understand quality and are able to provide evaluative and productive skills through peer and self-assessment.

Another limitation is visible through the understanding of cognitive and motivational theories, which provide deeper explanation of the reason behind the success of formative assessment when students become more engaged and use more self-regulation, and develop stronger understanding of subject matter (Bandura 1977, 1995; Bandura & Cervone, 1983). It has been argued that the transparency of formative assessment process is crucial and sometimes may limit the language use itself

controlled classroom language interaction. Sadler (2005) argues that quality of standards should be in relation to the specific lesson and supported by exemplars.

Sadler (1998, 2009a, 2009b, 2010) addresses some of these issues through examination of previous literature, to identify features of formative assessment such as cognitive research into students’ self-awareness in monitoring their learning referred to meta-cognitive research which leads to improvement in students’ achievement. Literature examining cognitive aspects of student learning demonstrates significant importance in students’ knowledge prior entering the classroom, often suggesting that strong prior knowledge is essential to supporting new learning and enabling transfer of learning. However, formative assessment processes directly connect the teaching and learning strategies to students’ current performance. Therefore, teachers’ interaction practices, and the language they use, are significant: the concept of quality can be inducted by students through more than just pre-specified criteria alone. Restriction on criteria as a point of reference has been consistently critiqued, as researchers identify that students need support to deconstruct the criteria by ‘how’, and argue that engaging students through a metacognitive approach is a critical approach in assessment (Pryor & Crossouard, 2008). The aim of such a process is to understand the nature of the criteria, and to encourage students and teachers to be open to new emerging criteria during the formative practice.

Although Sadler’s (1989) theory is consistent on ‘closing the gaps’ between the current and the desired and develop students evaluative and productive skills, it has been interpreted as too limited to identify the effectiveness of feedback (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). The concern is to reposition formative assessment and feedback within a wider framework to include self-regulation, motivation and behaviour. As my interest was on teachers’ formative assessment and feedback practice and how they adapted and adopted effective formative feedback practice, it was my research interest to explore what influenced their practice of bringing students into the assessment process. For this reason, I have found it useful to deploy Sadler’s theoretical framework of effective feedback to analyse teachers’ uptake and enactment of formative feedback strategies, and their conceptions and beliefs, to understand the reasons behind their actions.