In order to overcome the problems associated with formative assessment, a framework for evaluating an assessment is necessary: doing so requires developing a definition of effective assessment that encompasses the themes and proposals suggested by existing literature. Such a theory should encompass the tenets of formative assessment; the sharing of responsibilities for assessment; the aims of assessment; and its outcomes. It is of concern that efforts to develop a theory for formative assessment have yielded little by way of a universally accepted framework.
Efforts towards developing such a theoretical framework for formative assessment began with Black (1998), who proposed some elements for such a framework, including:
1. A general learning theory with emphasis on constructivism. . .
2. Models for epistemology of each subject and hence of learning progress within each. . .
3. A theory of the cognitive acts of learning through feedback. . .
4. Analysis of self- and peer-assessment and of the particular learning pro- cesses and social interactions these involve.
5. Study of the effects of different styles of feedback on self-esteem, self- attribution and readiness to learn.
Criteria Assessment task Assessor’s interpretation Grade, feedback Student’s interpretation Student’s performance Student’s interpretation Subject structure General intellectual development Student’s development
Teacher/assessor Teacher/assessor’s self-learning Student
Figure 2.1: An illustration of the process of formative assessment with respect to a task (Yorke, 2003, p. 487)
6. Student-teacher and pupil-peer interactions in learning as a case of social discourse.
(Black, 1998, p. 45)
Yorke (2003) commented that drawing each of these elements into a single framework is not a straightforward task. Furthermore, he argued that other considerations must also be included:
1. The epistemological structure of the relevant discipline(s); 2. The ontology of students. . . ;
3. Theoretical constructs relating to learning and assessment; 4. The professional knowledge of the educator/assessor. . . ; and 5. Theory relating to communication and interpretation. (Yorke,2003, p. 486)
In assembling these various elements, Yorke developed an “illustration of the process of formative assessment in respect of a formal task” (Figure 2.1). It considers the actions and interpretations of both the student and lecturer in the formative assessment process. The process is described as follows.
When a lecturer designs an assessment task, he or she considers the subject structure, the current standard (“general intellectual development”) of the cohort, and “the sequencing
of intellectual and moral development progression” of the student. Lecturers communi- cate the criteria for the assessment, and the student interprets these criteria as he or she completes the assessment. The lecturer compares the student’s performance with the criteria and interprets this comparison. As a result of this comparison, the lecturer carries out his or her own appraisal of the assessment task, making adjustments to the task or the criteria, while also providing a grade or feedback. The student interprets the grade and feedback leading to further development and the renewing of the process. It is the author’s opinion that there are some notable absences from this illustration. Yorke (2003, p. 489) later mentioned the issue of “learned dependence”: that students become dependent on lecturers for feedback on their performance without learning how to acquire this knowledge for themselves. The process in Figure 2.1 lacks the scope for students to learn independence and rely less on their lecturers for feedback. It is particu- larly apparent at the culmination of the “student’s performance” action, where students are not expected to compare their own performances with the assessment criteria. The second flaw, in the opinion of the author, is the placing of the “Grade, feedback” action. It is implied that students receive feedback only from the assessor and only after the assessment has been completed. Figure 2.1 implies that feedback prepares students for subsequent assessment and it is not clear whether students have the opportunity to demonstrate that feedback has aided their development. Yorke noted:
“If the student has moved to the upper end of the pre-existing zone of proximal development, then he or she should be able to do unaided what previously needed knowledgeable support.” (Yorke,2003, p. 496)
Thirdly, the formative assessment process, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, does not suggest any role for peers in formative assessment. In both Black and Wiliam (2009) and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2007), there is a responsibility for peers to share learning objectives and dialogue to facilitate improvement. Topping (1998, p. 268) noted that, while more research was desired on the topic, peer assessment has been associated with “improved confidence and better presentation and appraisal skills” and “learning gains in terms of test performance, skill performance, or subjective measures are frequently reported”. The author believes there is a place for peer responsibility in a model for effective assessment. The model also fails to consider the motives for assessment and how they impact on the criteria. As Black and Wiliam (2009) pointed out, teachers have learning intentions, but students might be working towards their own goals. As with the argument for student autonomy and self-regulation, students must bear some responsibility for their own de- velopment and progress towards independence; yet, the lecturer may set a standard that
the entire cohort is expected to achieve. The outcome might be implicit learning out- comes that the lecturer expects to be achieved and some explicit criteria for assessment success that is shared between lecturers, peers and students.
Thus a theoretical framework for effective assessment must incorporate more than what has been highlighted as required for a theory of formative assessment. Such a framework must consider:
• The roles and responsibilities of lecturers, peers and students in achieving effective assessment;
• The motives of lecturers, peers and students and how these affect the criteria for achieving effective assessment;
• The role of practice and feedback in improving the student, particularly with re- spect to the depth of learning and understanding, and the aspects of students that the feedback is aimed towards;
• The process of developing self-regulation, independence and autonomy in students that should ultimately result in a much-diminished role for the lecturer;
• The constraints that are imposed on assessment that may affect its scope for being effective;
• The influences and requirements that mathematics learning and assessment have on the process of effective assessment.
In the following chapter, the aspects of assessment noted here and previously are dis- cussed in light of activity theory. By using activity theory as a theoretical framework for both the study and the definition of effective assessment, some hypotheses for pre- dicting lecturer, peer and student activity are generated and tested. This is discussed in more detail in the activity theory chapter; however, it is more pertinent to discuss computer-aided assessment and how its use in mathematics assessment appears to relate to effective assessment.