Table 6.1 summarizes ways in which I attempted to integrate assessment as suggested by The Assessment Reform Group (1999). The right-hand side of the table highlights criteria
suggested by The Assessment Reform Group (1999), and the left-hand side indicates strategies planned for integration into the syllabus for Cycle Two:
Table 6.1 Summary of the integration of assessment for learning into the syllabus Shared learning goals Based upon the deconstruction of model texts, analytic
rubrics would be created jointly by teachers and students.
Recognizable standards of achievement
Model texts would illustrate standards of achievement by using Japanese English-speaking peers (see section 6.3).
Step-by-step feedback to inform students how to improve
Formative use of summative assessment.
Assessment criteria directly linked to syllabus content. Weekly reference to rubrics and criteria.
Student and teacher reviews of assessment data
Feedback following summative assessments.
Meetings following final assessment between teacher and student, to discuss differences or similarities between awarded teacher and student assessments.
Self-assessments Students self-assessed their performance after each class
and after the final assessment
Non-mechanistic criterion-based approach
Analytic rubrics to be jointly created by student and teacher.
Student feedback to teacher at the end of each class.
Promotion of
independent learning Self-assessment procedures. Explicit goals for students on a weekly and semester- long basis.
Opportunities for
student reflection Weekly reflective journals. Feedback to teacher. Self-assessment procedures.
Following Cycle One, it was clear that students required greater access to the criteria used in syllabus design and assessment. At first, to avoid a mechanized approach to criteria selection, a holistic rubric was developed, designed according to the level descriptors from the Common European Framework (see Appendix 16). At first, I translated potential holistic rubrics into Japanese, to reduce the need to process complicated meta-language; however, this holistic approach reduced opportunities to jointly construct criteria with the students, as advised by The Assessment Reform Group (1999). It seemed clear that to fulfil the
that goals and expectations were clear to students, a jointly constructed analytic rubric was necessary.
Table 6.1 illustrates an attempt to address problems of a mechanistic criterion-based approach as highlighted by Davison and Leung (2009), by examining model texts with
students during the deconstruction phase of the teaching and learning cycle, with teachers and students using this deconstruction to jointly prepare criteria for assessment. This meant that individual criteria for final assessment could often vary from class to class, and even change as the semester progressed. An example of an analytic rubric generated by teacher and students can be seen in Appendix 15. It was hoped these analytic rubrics would allow
students to formulate clear goals of achievement that were recognizable and obtainable by the students themselves. It gave students some ownership of the assessment process, and was intended to reduce feelings of anxiety and frustration.
To further address the criteria and issues associated with assessment for learning (The Assessment Reform Group, 2009; Davison and Leung, 2009; Black, 2009; Cumming, 2005, 2009), numerous decisions were made based on reference to the literature. This led to innovations in the syllabus in a principled way, based on the criteria of The Assessment Reform Group for conducting assessment for learning. New syllabus components, therefore, ensured that students were encouraged to reflect on weekly classes in student journals, and also by self-assessing their understanding of key criteria or weekly activities. Students were also encouraged via classroom documents to provide feedback to the teacher about criteria or activities they found difficult or troubling. Students could also reach a consensus on whether specific criteria needed to be changed in the rubric, or descriptions amended (although it was noted in my teacher journal that such requests were never made).
Self-assessment and reflective journals also allowed students to reflect on what they had studied and what steps they needed to take to improve. Opportunities were given via
homework for study outside of class, and students were encouraged to study independently, in order to address any problems they felt they had with any of the ideas or criteria we discussed in class.
Immediately after the final assessment, students also made their own self-
assessments, together with written feedback to the teacher on their performance. These scores and comments were collected and compared with the teacher’s scores and comments. Student and teacher then had one final conversation together, to negotiate a final score for the
speaking assessment based on these two sets of grades. In this way, the summative assessments became formative, and gave students concrete goals for how they should
improve. Such a radical overhaul of the syllabus was not a simple procedure, however, and a number of issues arose. I was concerned about the volume of work needed to create lesson plans, but also the amount of explicit teaching that needed to be conducted in class. Together with introducing a new genre-based approach, students were also being asked to adopt new ideas about assessment, and to understand assessment rubrics. This greatly reduced time in class for actual speaking activities, and this concern is raised in the teacher journal at numerous times:
Today I felt that I achieved the objectives of the class, but it cannot be ignored that for the past two lessons the majority of the class time has been teacher-focused
Ultimately, it was decided that the negatives of preparation time and explicit teacher- focused classroom instruction were outweighed by the benefits afforded to the students. However, this is an important point to emphasize when generalizing the findings, as the volume of work may not be viable in some classrooms.