287
edits
Teaching Approaches/Assessment: Difference between revisions
From OER in Education
→Collaboration
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{teaching approach header}} | |||
Readers working in Intial Teacher Education (ITE), or students engaged on ITE course may find it useful to read the [[Assessment Overview]], which is targeted at ITE providers. | Readers working in Intial Teacher Education (ITE), or students engaged on ITE course may find it useful to read the [[Assessment Overview]], which is targeted at ITE providers. | ||
Assessment may take many forms, including [[Teaching Approaches/Whole Class|whole class]], [[Category:Group | Assessment may take many forms, including [[Teaching Approaches/Whole Class|whole class]], [[Category:Group work|small group]] and individual. Readers should consider reading widely, in particular with reference to [[Teaching Approaches/Dialogic Teaching|Dialogic Approaches]] in addition to the guidance given below. Where appropriate links have been incorporated - if you are a wiki-contributor, please do add further internal links, and if of high quality (especially CC licenced), external too. | ||
=What is effective assessment?= | =What is effective assessment?= | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
A key component of AfL is the use of high quality questioning. For guidance in this area readers should refer to the general guidance [[Questioning Research Summary]], and the more practical document on [[Types Of Question]], as well as the resources under the [[Category:Questioning|Questioning Category]]. | A key component of AfL is the use of high quality questioning. For guidance in this area readers should refer to the general guidance [[Questioning Research Summary]], and the more practical document on [[Types Of Question]], as well as the resources under the [[Category:Questioning|Questioning Category]]. | ||
With respect to assessment, should specifically note that closed questions, for which pupils may offer (and receive feedback affirming) only one correct answer, are likely to provide limited opportunities for developing understanding of key concepts. It is important to develop questioning techniques which engage higher levels of reasoning, and dialogue. | With respect to assessment, should specifically note that closed questions, for which pupils may offer (and receive feedback affirming) only one correct answer, are likely to provide limited opportunities for developing understanding of key concepts. It is important to develop questioning techniques which engage higher levels of reasoning, and dialogue. Fundamentally dialoguethat includes students in the sequencing of content - as a cumulative enterprise - may be important, particularly if they are to move from tuition to self-monitoring behaviours. Blanchard suggests that, in fact, the original AfL construction might be revised to incorporate a better understanding of sequencing in the classroom, "The spirit of AfL is instantiated in the way teachers conceptualise and sequence the tasks undertaken by pupils in the lesson…. | ||
Formative assessment includes both feedback and self-monitoring. The goal of many instructional systems is to facilitate the transition from feedback to self-monitoring…. | |||
Classroom learning […] depends on learners having some understanding of how and why tasks are designed and ordered as they are […]. Dialogue is the medium: dialogue about activity that has yet to start, that is ongoing, and that has been brought to a close." Blanchard (2008, p.145) | |||
= Effective Group Work = | = Effective Group Work = | ||
| Line 55: | Line 59: | ||
Many Virtual Learning Environments have powerful feedback functions built in to them, and there are a range of other tools which may be useful and go beyond such inbuilt features. Even if feedback is not automated, technology can support 'drag and drop' commenting, and maintaining a record of such work over time, which may form a useful point of discussion with students. | Many Virtual Learning Environments have powerful feedback functions built in to them, and there are a range of other tools which may be useful and go beyond such inbuilt features. Even if feedback is not automated, technology can support 'drag and drop' commenting, and maintaining a record of such work over time, which may form a useful point of discussion with students. | ||
== | ==Quizzes and Clickers== | ||
Quizzes are, of course, an obvious way to provide automated feedback. These may also be setup for 'in class' use via clickers, other similar devices, or mobile phones (and of course, mini-whiteboards). The advantage in this context is the ability to use responses to orchestrate dialogue around the whole class response system, and to extend the learning beyond the type of 'closed question' system which can be common in online multiple choice quizzes. | |||
==Collaboration== | ==Collaboration== | ||
Some tools may also provide for such dialogue online in the context of | Some tools may also provide for such dialogue online in the context of quizzes and other activities such as shared extended writing. A number of tools (e.g. Google Docs) provide chat functions alongside document areas, while others allow collaborative authoring in different ways (e.g. wikis, see for example [[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14950556078088218431&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5|this article]] on the Thinking Together approach and the use of wikis). | ||
Such tools may be used for a range of activities, including multimedia creation, question and answer forums, and collaborative writing activities - on which more below. | Such tools may be used for a range of activities, including multimedia creation, question and answer forums, and collaborative writing activities - on which more below. | ||
===Collaborative tools for orchestrating dialogue=== | ===Collaborative tools for orchestrating dialogue=== | ||
http://www.metafora-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=3 | Some research has explored the use of collaborative tools for structuring and orchestrating dialogue (on and offline) in constructive ways. The [[http://www.metafora-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=3|metafora project]] is exploring some possibilities here with respect to dialogic talk. The [[http://www.knowledgeforum.com/|Knowledge Building]] approach has also used software (paid) to engage students in structuring their claims collaboratively to construct new knowledge. Teachers may find that any resources which aid in 'argument mapping' and constructive turn taking (e.g. concept mapping software such as [[http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/|Compendium]] or many 'forum' based interfaces which may be preinstalled on a VLE). | ||
=Writing= | =Assessment for Learning and Writing= | ||
{{adaptedfrom|Improving Writing - Research Summary|Assessment|Since writing involves the integration of several processes, re-reading to revise is important (Norwood, Hayes and Flower 1980). Chanquoy (2001) shows the positive effect of returning to writing after the event. The time delay seems to help, but the techniques for revising need to be explicitly taught, that is modelled by the teacher. Glynn et al. (1989), behavioural psychologists researching in New Zealand classrooms, found considerable evidence that positive oral feedback has an impact on both motivation and the amount written. This was found to be more significant when errors were selectively targeted and when pupils were involved in error correction and praised for this. The research suggests that teachers’ comments should be organisational, encouraging, constructive, challenging and push pupils’ thinking. The work of Black and Wiliam (1998) and Black et al. (2002) looks at formative assessment and its relationship to raising standards in pupils’ learning. They comment that effective feedback needs to make explicit to pupils what is involved in producing high-quality writing and what steps are needed for improvement. They suggest that pupils should be actively engaged in the thinking and discussion involved.}} For further guidance on Improving Writing, refer to the document [[Improving Writing - Research Summary]]. | Assessment is often focussed on written assignments. While understanding the concepts one is writing about is important in this process, there are also specific skills related to conveying understanding and meeting assessment criteria in written forms. {{adaptedfrom|Improving Writing - Research Summary|Assessment|Since writing involves the integration of several processes, re-reading to revise is important (Norwood, Hayes and Flower 1980). Chanquoy (2001) shows the positive effect of returning to writing after the event. The time delay seems to help, but the techniques for revising need to be explicitly taught, that is modelled by the teacher. Glynn et al. (1989), behavioural psychologists researching in New Zealand classrooms, found considerable evidence that positive oral feedback has an impact on both motivation and the amount written. This was found to be more significant when errors were selectively targeted and when pupils were involved in error correction and praised for this. The research suggests that teachers’ comments should be organisational, encouraging, constructive, challenging and push pupils’ thinking. The work of Black and Wiliam (1998) and Black et al. (2002) looks at formative assessment and its relationship to raising standards in pupils’ learning. They comment that effective feedback needs to make explicit to pupils what is involved in producing high-quality writing and what steps are needed for improvement. They suggest that pupils should be actively engaged in the thinking and discussion involved.}} For further guidance on Improving Writing, refer to the document [[Improving Writing - Research Summary]]. Teachers should consider taking a range of approaches to assessing writing, and working with pupils to assess each other's writing. | ||
= | =Assessment for Learning and Reading= | ||
{{adaptedfrom|Improving Reading - Research Summary|Assessment|Over the last decade we have become increasingly aware of the importance of metacognition in learning to read (Baker and Brown 1984). One of the characteristics distinguishing younger readers from older readers, and poorer readers from fluent readers, is that younger and poorer readers often do not recognise when they have not understood a text (Garner and Reis 1981); that is, there is evidence that they are not actively aware of their own level of understanding and are therefore not able to make an autonomous decision to use a strategy to enhance their understanding. Other readers show a greater awareness of their own level of understanding for they will stop when a text does not make sense to them. Some will then go on to select from their range of strategies that which might help overcome their problem. | {{adaptedfrom|Improving Reading - Research Summary|Assessment|Over the last decade we have become increasingly aware of the importance of metacognition in learning to read (Baker and Brown 1984). One of the characteristics distinguishing younger readers from older readers, and poorer readers from fluent readers, is that younger and poorer readers often do not recognise when they have not understood a text (Garner and Reis 1981); that is, there is evidence that they are not actively aware of their own level of understanding and are therefore not able to make an autonomous decision to use a strategy to enhance their understanding. Other readers show a greater awareness of their own level of understanding for they will stop when a text does not make sense to them. Some will then go on to select from their range of strategies that which might help overcome their problem. | ||
In shared and guided reading sessions we can model for pupils how fluent readers monitor their understanding and use strategies to clarify their own understanding. These may range from semantic strategies to work out a troublesome word to sophisticated reflections on whether the meaning is deliberately obscure (as in a mystery) or perhaps challenging the author/text because the reader thinks they are incorrect. Such teacher modelling is an important part of the learning opportunities within reading sessions.}}. For further guidance on Improving Reading, refer to the document [[Improving Reading - Research Summary]]. | In shared and guided reading sessions we can model for pupils how fluent readers monitor their understanding and use strategies to clarify their own understanding. These may range from semantic strategies to work out a troublesome word to sophisticated reflections on whether the meaning is deliberately obscure (as in a mystery) or perhaps challenging the author/text because the reader thinks they are incorrect. Such teacher modelling is an important part of the learning opportunities within reading sessions.}}. For further guidance on Improving Reading, refer to the document [[Improving Reading - Research Summary]]. | ||
{{teaching approach footer}} | |||
