Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Charlene Chen, Christabel Hung, Ong Wan Ting, N4 Cluster Assessment Champions
Introduction
Our Singapore Curriculum Philosophy highlights the fraternity’s belief that ”assessment is integral to learning and in so helping children become self-directed learners”. This empowering experience for learners is a bold statement of assessment and we question whether this aspiration remains at odds with the lived experience of many students in Singapore schools.
We are three Humanities teachers on a journey to improve our assessment practices as part of the N4 Humanities Assessment Literacy consultancy. Since January 2023, under the guidance of Associate Professor Kelvin Tan, we have come together to reflect on and interrogate our own assumptions, beliefs and practices on assessment. We seek to shift our practices to influence beyond grades and performance. Instead, we hope to design assessments that can help all learners progress cognitively towards desired learning outcomes and impact their motivation and confidence to learn positively in the longer term.
This is a tall order by any measure, and especially challenging as Humanities teachers, given the ambiguity and open-endedness inherent to our disciplines. Some students thus come to us fearful of the “subjective” nature of assessment and are impatient with the lack of “quick fixes”. They hope to have prescribed models, fall back on rote memorisation, and rely on teachers to assess their work. In addressing this, how do we initiate the process of nurturing their capacity for ownership in learning, fostering independence?
Our prevailing practices
- There was reliance on teacher-led models, which consisted of consistently employed annotated exemplars, marking rubrics, and level descriptors to provide a replicable trajectory towards an exemplary response. In doing so, we often provided tangible examples of what constituted a well-crafted answer. By highlighting key components and articulating the underlying reasoning, these exemplars aimed to demystify the expectations for students, offering a tangible benchmark for them to aspire to. The accompanying marking rubrics and level descriptors further delineated the specific criteria against which responses would be evaluated. These not only communicated the nuanced aspects that would be considered but also provided a structured framework for assessment, contributing to transparency and fairness in the grading process.
- In doing so, we realised that there was a significant emphasis on the result, as characterised by the polished, final outputs that students produced. The underlying assumption was that the quality of these finished products was indicative of the depth of understanding and mastery of content. However, the emphasis on the product, while providing a tangible measure of achievement, sometimes obscured the formative aspects of education—the moments of grappling with concepts, the exploration of diverse perspectives, and the development of analytical and critical thinking skills.
- Lastly, our initial assessment practices focused on the efficiency of marking, coupled with the administration of class-level feedback—a strategy designed to achieve economies of scale. This approach was motivated by the desire to streamline the assessment process, manage time constraints effectively, and ensure a consistent and standardised feedback mechanism for the entire class. Swift feedback is essential to guide students effectively, and any disconnect between task completion and the provision of timely feedback can hinder the learning process. This approach optimised our efforts, catering to the broader needs of the class in a time-effective manner. However, while seemingly pragmatic, this approach has its trade-offs and bears the risk of overlooking the unique strengths and weaknesses of individual students. It posed a potential challenge to delivering personalised, targeted feedback that could address the distinct learning trajectories of each student.
As we embarked on a journey of reassessment, we began to question whether the quest for efficiency should come at the expense of the nuanced, tailored guidance essential for the diverse needs within the Humanities classroom.
Our goals
This prompted us to engage in self-reflection, prompting questions such as:
- How do we move beyond efficient to effective feedback, and make it more actionable for students?
- In what ways can we empower students to play a more active role in the feedback process?
- How do we ensure that our feedback practices contribute to fostering students’ critical thinking about their cognitive processes?
This introspection became a catalyst for change, propelling us towards adopting a more balanced and student-centred approach to both feedback and assessment.
Feed Up, Feedback and Feed Forward
In our journey to reshape assessment practices, the concepts of feed up, feedback and feed forward (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) underpinned our approach. This cycle of effective feedback underlines our commitment to student-centered learning and continual improvement.
Feed up involves providing clear expectations and goals upfront, setting the stage for focused learning objectives. Feedback is the evaluative information provided in response to students’ performance, offering insights into their strengths and areas for improvement. Feed forward, on the other hand, extends beyond the immediate task. It promotes transference of learning, guiding learners toward future success by actionable steps for enhancement. These three processes are synergistic, forming a cohesive cycle to propel learners forward. The artefacts showcased in the rest of this article will make reference to this cycle, which we consciously sought to enact in our day-to-day practices.
Our ongoing efforts
How did we go about trying to achieve our goals? Collectively, there were three shifts in practice that we aimed for over the course of the year:
Shift 1: Student-Friendly Scaffolds and Checklists that Target not only Product but Processes
This shift involved a fundamental change in how we guide students through their assignments. Instead of merely focusing on the product, we introduced student-friendly scaffolds and checklists that emphasise not only the outcome but also the processes involved. These scaffolds serve as supportive frameworks, providing students with a clear roadmap for navigating the complexities of their assignments. The checklists offer visual reminders of the necessary steps and criteria for structuring their work. By incorporating these tools, we aimed to shift the students’ focus from a purely result-oriented mindset to a more process-oriented one, encouraging them to consider the journey of learning as integral to their academic growth.
Shift 2: Targeting Student Self-Regulation and Increasing Student Voice and Choice
This shift focused on enhancing student self-regulation and amplifying their voice and choice in the learning process. To achieve this, adjustments were made to assessment practices, particularly in essay writing assignments. The more deliberate introduction of a feed up, feedback, and feed forward process encouraged students to review their own work before submission. By incorporating a cover page and a checklist, students gained visual aids to guide them through the assessment criteria, promoting self-regulation.
Additionally, to increase student voice and choice, students were encouraged to identify specific areas for teachers’ feedback, moving away from a predominantly product-oriented focus. This intentional approach aimed to make assessments more personalised, allowing students to take an active role in shaping their learning experiences.
Some of the practices captured in the above artefacts involve significant time investment, such as in re-designing worksheets to be student-friendly, or introducing new routines and expectations of students, or even in consistently rationalising to students why these were worthwhile to engage in. In some sense, it sacrificed our prized ‘efficiency’. To manage this issue, we had to be selective about when to apply these strategies (e.g. selected assignments / selected classes / optional vs compulsory questions in our worksheets).
Shift 3: Building Expertise of Students to Self- and Peer-Assess
In this shift, we sought to empower students by building their expertise in self-assessment and peer assessment. The traditional model often places the entire burden of assessment on teachers. However, by involving students in evaluating their work and that of their peers, we aimed to cultivate a deeper understanding of assessment criteria.
Artefact 8 takes the form of a checklist, serving as a dynamic tool for gauging student comprehension and self-assessment. Students are tasked with ticking off criteria they believe they have fulfilled, while the teacher concurrently marks completed elements. This comparison of the student’s self-assessment against the teacher’s evaluation unveils valuable insights. A disparity, where fewer ticks than assigned by the teacher are present, hints at a potential under-confidence in the student’s self-perception. Conversely, an abundance of ticks in criteria not achieved exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of task requirements. The straightforward nature of the checklist allows students to gauge their performance at a glance, proving to be particularly beneficial for less motivated students, providing them with a quick and accessible means to assess their performance without the need to navigate through extensive feedback.
In a discipline where interpretations and expressions can vary widely, the checklist also offers a tangible and structured framework for students to align their understanding with the task requirements. By breaking down the criteria into clear, actionable items, it brings a sense of clarity to perceived subjective elements, allowing students to navigate Humanities assignments with greater confidence. This aids not only in self-assessment but also facilitates more transparent communication between students and teachers, fostering a shared understanding of expectations.
In Artefact 9, the teacher modelled how to ask good questions– a process-oriented approach to coach students to learn to think like the assessor. The 5W1H framework was used as a guide for students to craft effective questions and to think critically. For instance, questions such as “What actions did the USSR take in response to the US, and why did they take these actions?” encourage students to delve into historical events, promoting analytical thinking. Similarly, “How did these actions contribute to the escalating tension between the two nations?” invites students to explore cause-and-effect relationships, fostering a deeper understanding. By framing questions in the 5W1H format, we aim to strike a balance—providing an accessible and general tool for exploration while encouraging students to engage in thoughtful analysis and demonstrate proficiency in questioning.
In Artefact 11, students engage in peer marking, where they read and take note of elements their peers may have overlooked in their responses. Initially, at the first level, peers identify the items that were missed. Subsequently, as students become accustomed to receiving feedback, peers transition from providing answers or suggesting areas for improvement to using questions to guide their friends. This shift compels peers to develop a profound understanding of the content, ensuring that they can pose questions that lead their friends to enhance their answers. Additionally, this approach encourages their friends to think critically and carefully read the prompts in order to derive the answers.
Through such guided processes, students move beyond novices and ‘mimickers’ of teachers’ work, but gradually learn to identify strengths and areas for improvement not only in their own work but also in the work of their peers. This fosters a sense of autonomy, develops critical thinking skills and also builds a learning community.
These three shifts collectively aimed not only to improve the effectiveness of assessments but also to instill a sense of ownership and independence in students, aligning with our broader goal of fostering self-directed learners in the Humanities classrooms.
Conclusion and future considerations
As we continue this journey of reassessing and reshaping our assessment practices in Humanities classrooms, the lessons learned have highlighted the significance of distinguishing between learning and performance. Moving away from a mere error correction mentality, we aim to unravel the deeper thinking processes that may pose obstacles to learning, fostering a more holistic educational experience for our students.
A key takeaway from our ongoing efforts is the importance of involving students in the assessment process. Shifting from a traditional approach to assessment towards one that encourages a discourse and dialogue with students promotes self-regulation. By giving students a greater voice in their assessments, we anticipate that assessment will become a source of motivation, ultimately fostering a sense of ownership in their learning journey.
Moreover, sustaining and further developing these shifts in practice necessitates a deliberate and intentional approach. We recognise the need to integrate the feed up/feedback/feed forward process more deeply into our plans. Teachers must consider their assessment practices in tandem with curriculum and pedagogy changes in the classroom. As we move forward, we plan to make conscious efforts to design learning experiences with this process in mind, ensuring that assessment is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our teaching strategies.
While the shifts and examples we shared above may seem like an upfront commitment of time and resources, we believe that there are long-term advantages in terms of streamlining and reducing teachers’ workload. As we shift towards greater student agency, we set the stage for more self-regulated, autonomous and motivated students. Over time, it reduces the need for teachers to be the only coaches in the classroom and allows students to better evaluate their own work without the need for constant teacher input. By unraveling the intricacies of learning processes and addressing challenges at their roots, teachers can pave the way for more sustainable and effective teaching practices.
Looking beyond our individual classrooms, we envision influencing other subjects and involving more teachers in this transformative approach to assessment. Collaborative efforts across disciplines can contribute to a more comprehensive shift in the educational landscape. By sharing our experiences and successes, we hope to inspire a broader community of educators to explore and implement student-centred assessment practices. This includes conducting workshops, creating resource materials, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement in assessment methodologies.
In conclusion, our journey toward student-centred assessment practices in the Humanities is an ongoing and evolving process. As we strive to create a more responsive and empowering learning environment, we remain committed to refining our strategies and exploring new avenues that will not only benefit our students but also contribute to the broader transformation of assessment practices in education.
Reference
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.