by Lin Rongchan
Assessment literacy is a multidimensional concept that involves
teachers, students and other stakeholders (Stiggins, 1991). More specifically, Willis
et al. (2013) put forth the following definition for assessment literacy from a
sociocultural lens:
“Assessment literacy is a dynamic context dependent
social practice that involves teachers articulating and negotiating classroom
and cultural knowledges with one another and with learners, in the initiation,
development and practice of assessment to achieve the learning goals of
students.” (Willis et al., 2013, p.242)
Evidently, it is not enough to just focus on teachers’ assessment
literacy without considering the role of students in assessment. Student
involvement in assessment practices is central to the development of students’
assessment literacy, an area that has received increasing attention from
scholars (e.g., Charteris & Thomas, 2017; Davari-Torshizi & Bahraman,
2019; Deeley & Bovill, 2017; Smith et al., 2013).
In this article, I outline the rationale of involving students in
assessment and discuss relevant strategies. I will also share an example of how I involved secondary school students
in assessment in a poetry writing course. This example was chosen to offer an alternative
context (i.e., non-academic nature) to complement the examples shared by other
contributors in this issue of our bulletin.
Rationale of involving students in assessment
Our understanding of the relationship between assessment and learning has
evolved over the years. In line with paradigm shifts in learning theories, assessment
practices could be classified into three generations: 1) “assessing learning of
what is taught”, 2) “assessing learning as individual sense-making”; 3)
“assessing learning as building knowledge as part of doing things with others”
(see James, 2008, pp.21-29). Tracing the role of the learner across these three
generations of assessment practices, the increase in student agency and voice
is evident.
As what Watkins (2005) eloquently expressed, “students are crew, not
passengers” (p.35) in a classroom community. Focusing on student-driven
learning, Watkins (2017) further posed a powerful question for us to reflect
on: “Are learners invited and helped to:
View themselves as driving the learning, contribute their own questions,
strategies and explanations, choose their challenges, develop their criteria,
and assess their progress?”
(p. 3).
Assessment literacy is contingent on learners’ active collaboration with
teachers and peers. In the 21st century classroom that values active
and collaborative learning, it is paramount to involve students in assessment
to ensure the congruence of students’ learning and assessment experiences as
well as to empower them in their learning. Meaningful teacher-student
partnership in assessment via democratic practices can foster intrinsic
motivation, active engagement and deeper ways to learning, thereby increasing students’
assessment literacy (Deeley & Bovill, 2017).
Ways to involve students
One way to engage students in assessment is through feedback practices. As defined by Carless & Boud (2018), feedback is “a process through which learners make sense of information from various sources and use it to enhance their work or learning strategies” (p.1315). Through developing students’ feedback literacy, students would be able to appreciate feedback, make judgments about their own/peers’ work, manage affect and take action accordingly (Carless & Boud, 2018). There is a growing body of research in developing students’ feedback literacy (e.g., Carless & Boud, 2018; Ketonen et al., 2020; Molloy et al., 2020). Readers who are interested in this area could refer to our February 2021 issue.
From a macro
perspective, student involvement in assessment could also be conceptualized based
on the extent of involvement. Building on Brew’s (1999) typology, Falchikov
(2005) has classified studies on self and peer assessment into three different
levels. Table 1 summarizes key information mentioned in Falchikov (2005).
Table 1
Levels of Involvement
|
Level |
Key aspect |
Illustration |
|
1 |
Checking knowledge, performance or skill level |
Students use model answers, marking schemes,
rating scales and other teacher-provided criteria. |
|
2 |
Discussing and negotiating criteria |
Students participate in discussions and negotiation
of criteria which they subsequently use to judge their work. |
|
3 |
Decision-making by students (i.e., student
choices in assessment) |
Students are empowered to make decision (e.g.,
criteria selection, weightings and scores). |
At this juncture, I would like to invite you to reflect on the following questions:
- How did/would your students respond to the related assessment practices across the three levels?
- Which level of self- and peer-assessment is more prevalent in your current professional setting? What are the reasons behind this phenomenon?
- What are the factors that impede us in further empowering students in assessment practices?
- What conditions need to be created to further involve students in assessment in your respective assessment contexts? What resources would you need?
Considering that assessment is a situated practice, a good understanding
of the context, including related impetuses and potential obstacles, would
facilitate the planning, enactment and evaluation of student involvement in
assessment.
An example: A
poetry writing course for secondary
school students
As outlined above, there are different ways as to
how educators could involve students in assessment to develop students’
assessment literacy. I would like to take this chance to share my endeavors in
engaging secondary school students in a poetry writing course.
As my service to the community, I have been involved in the
Author-in-Residence Programme organized by the Committee to Promote Chinese
Language Learning (CPCLL), Singapore, since 2012. As my understanding of
assessment literacy deepens, I have been refining my course design based on the
framework on patchwork texts in assessment (Trevelyan & Wilson, 2011;
Winter 2003). The essence of the framework is to empower learners and promote
students’ learning through a series of carefully-sequenced patches that
culminate in a final integrative piece, with an intention to promote continuous
and deep learning, facilitate an integrated understanding of a topic as well
as stimulate self-reflection (Trevelyan & Wilson, 2011).
In the context of my 8-hour course (over 4 lessons), there was a total of
five patches which led to a final integrative piece as depicted in Figure1. The
relationship between each patch and the final piece can be a tight one (i.e.,
students could directly build on a particular patch and submit it in the final
integrative piece) or a loose one (i.e., students could create new work from
scratch). More specifically, for the final piece, students had to submit two
poems (minimally). For this final assessment, I provided summative qualitative
feedback on students’ work and had to select outstanding work to be considered
for the school’s and/or programme’s publication. For students whose work were
selected, they had to act on my feedback by further refining their work (if
necessary) before submitting their work to the respective editorial committee.
Figure 1
Patchwork Texts in Assessment for a Poetry Writing Course
The course content built on students’ prior knowledge (i.e., content covered
in their Chinese language class) such as their understanding of rhetorical
devices. The entire course was conducted virtually this year due to COVID-19. Logistics-wise,
a google folder was created and each student completed the various patches on
their respective document to facilitate collaboration and sharing between the
students. Table 2 summarizes the instructional processes and related patches.
Table 2
Enactment of patchwork texts in a poetry writing course
|
Lesson |
Instructional processes |
Patch |
|
1 |
Introduction · The class discussed key elements of contemporary poetry.
· Instructor guided students to appreciate and
analyze interesting poetry types (e.g., shape/concrete poetry) to trigger
interest. · Instructor emphasized the integration of meaning
and form in poetry. |
Patch 1 · Each student conceptualized a shape poem and
explained their choice of shape in relation to the proposed content of the
poem. · Each student shared their conceptualization. · Teacher asked questions and gave verbal feedback
for students’ further refinement of ideas. |
|
2 |
Association of ideas · Teacher introduced exercise on association of
ideas. · Based on the given prompt, students had to think
of a word or a short phrase in a sequential manner till they derived at a
total of eight words or phrases, including prompt provided. (An illustrative
example: Sky – Blue – Sadness – Loss – Hope – Sunlight – Plants – Life) · The instructor invited a few students to share
what they have thought of and asked for clarification if necessary. Students could
refine their string of words where appropriate. · Students read “Question and Answer” (by poet Xixi)
which was written using a series of ideas associated with one another in a sequential
manner (Zheng et al., 2005). |
Patch 2 · Students drafted their own poem based on the
string of words they thought of. · In pairs, students gave peer feedback (written
form) on their peer’s google document. · Instructor invited selected students to share
their work. The class discussed the work presented. · Instructor introduced other work to further
elaborate on association of ideas. |
|
3 |
Rhetorical devices · Instructor built on students’ prior knowledge by
reviewing key rhetorical devices (e.g., simile) that students have learned
through discussing selected poems. · Instructor introduced poetry that employs antonyms
and engaged students in analyzing the poems. |
Patch 3 · Each student came up with different antonyms.
Students took turn to share antonyms they thought of without repeating what
was already mentioned by peers. · Each student drafted a short poem by integrating
antonyms into their work. The class discussed selected students’ work. · Students were encouraged to draw on what they
have learned to create more poems outside of class in preparation for final
submission. |
|
Structure of poetry · Instructor introduced enjambment and end-stopped
lines. · Students analyzed the lines and stanzas of poems
and discussed the impact varying structures would have on the reader. |
Patch 4 · Students were given a paragraph from a prose. They
were asked to organize it into lines and stanzas. · Selected students explained their decision. · Instructor asked questions and gave feedback. · Instructor shared alternative ways to structure
the paragraph and further discussed the impact of different structural forms. · Students were prompted to think about the use of
enjambment and end-stopped lines in their own work, while considering the use
of rhyme. · Once again, students were encouraged to draw on
what they have learned to create more poems outside of class in preparation
for final submission. |
|
|
4 |
Poetry Slam · Students shared their work in class. |
Patch 5 · Each student presented a complete work with the
class. For this particular sharing, students could build on the patch(es)
completed in class previously. Alternatively, they could create a completely
new work by drawing on the skills that they learned in past lessons. · The class discussed peers’ work. · Students voted for their two favorite work
written by peers for instructor’s consideration in final assessment. |
|
|
Final Submission |
Final Integrative Piece · Students were given time to further refine their
work and submitted two poems from their portfolio for summative feedback. · Instructor to consider students’ voting results when
nominating work to be included in the publication by the school and the
programme respectively. |
As outlined above, students were involved in the assessment to varying extent. For example:
- Patch 2: Students worked in pairs to give peer feedback. The instructor provided feedback on selected work to further sharpen students’ thinking.
- Patch 3 and 4: Students had the opportunity to ask one another questions to help one another in refining their thoughts.
- Students were encouraged to create more poems outside of class (i.e., beyond the assigned tasks) across the patches in preparation for final submission. These served as blank patches for students to determine the theme and techniques independently.
- Patch 5: Students had the opportunity to translate feedback to feedforward depending on what they chose to share in the Poetry Slam. They subsequently voted for two best poems for instructor’s consideration in the final assessment. To some extent, this reflects level 3 of student involvement as noted by Falchikov (2005).
- Final integrative piece: Once again, students were required to translate feedback to feedforward. The final integrative piece would then entail a resubmission of past patch(es) in a more refined form. After final assessment, students again had the opportunity to act on instructor’s summative qualitative feedback by further refining their work in their submission for publications.
Through engaging learners across various patches over an extended period
of time, the scope of student involvement is broadened. It is envisaged that
students would refine their understanding and hone their skills in a coherent
and continuous manner, thereby increasing the likelihood of them creating work
of higher quality. I also hope that students enjoy continuous and deep learning
as well as develop an integrated understanding of poetry writing (see Trevelyan
& Wilson, 2011, on objectives of patchwork texts). For more discussion on
employing patchwork texts in local contexts,
please see Tan (2011) and Tan (2019).
Conclusion
In this article, I highlight the centrality of student involvement in
assessment by addressing the “why” and “how”. While I adopt a practitioner-oriented perspective when discussing related ideas, it is not my intention to provide an
exhaustible list of strategies or prescribe model approaches. Rather, this article
serves as an introductory piece to spark conversations. Together with other
contributors for the bulletin, I would love to continue this conversation with
you in our post-publication conversation. (Click here to register.)
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank A/P Kelvin Tan and Dr. Tay Hui Yong for their valuable
feedback on a previous draft.
Suggested citation:
Lin, R. (2021). Enhancing students’ assessment literacy. Assessment for All Learners (AfAL) Bulletin, July 2021. https://assessmentforall.blogspot.com/2021/06/enhacing-students-assessment-literacy.html
References
Carless, D. and D. Boud
(2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of
feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8),
1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Charteris,
J., & Thomas, E. (2016). Uncovering ‘unwelcome truths’ through student
voice: Teacher inquiry into agency and student assessment literacy. Teaching
Education, 28(2), 162-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1229291
Davari-Torshizi,
M. D., & Bahraman, M. (2019). I explain, therefore I learn: Improving
students’ assessment literacy and deep learning by teaching. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 61, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.002
Deeley, S. J., & Bovill. C. (2017). Staff
student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through
democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3),
463-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving
assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning
in higher and further education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203220993
James, M. (2008). Assessment and learning. In S.
Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment:
Understanding for reflection and application (pp. 20–35). Routledge.
Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M.
(2020). The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer
assessment as an intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(6),
407-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1835794
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing
a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment and
evaluation in higher education, 45(4), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R.,
& McPhail, R. (2013). Assessment literacy and student learning: The case
for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 44-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.598636
Stiggins,
R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 534-539.
Tan,
K. (2011). Alternative assessment in schools: A qualitative approach. Pearson.
Tan, M. (2019). Patching the gap with patchwork
assessment. SingTeach, Issue
68. https://singteach.nie.edu.sg/issue68-contributions1/
Trevelyan, R., & Wilson, A. (2011): Using patchwork texts in
assessment: Clarifying and categorising choices in their use, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 37(4), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.547928
Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms
as learning communities: What’s in it for schools. Routledge.
Watkins, C. (2017). Developing student-driven
learning: The patterns, the context, and the process. In N. Alias, & J.
Luaran (Eds.), Student-driven learning strategies for the 21st century classroom
(pp. 1-9). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1689-7.ch001
Willis, J., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2013).
Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and
assessment reform. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(2),
241-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9
Winter, R. 2003. Contextualizing the patchwork
text: Addressing problems of coursework assessment in higher education. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 40(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329031000088978
Zheng, Y.Z., Zhang, J.W., & Zeng, Z.C. (2005). Kuaile
mishi yixia. Global Publishing. (Work in Chinese)