Trusting Assessments in Schools

by
Chue Kah Loong, NIE

Assessment
in education covers a wide field of different topics. Researchers expound on
the benefits of formative assessment and explore the intricacies of feedback
models. At the same time, other researchers investigate ways to tighten the
rigor on summative assessments and debate the merits of standardised
assessments. Regardless of the research areas involved, one underlying aim of
these studies is the endeavour for more effective assessment practices. Yet,
many of these studies tend to neglect one foundational mechanism that drives
the efficacy of these practices. This mechanism is trust.

One of
the most often cited definition of trust in literature is provided by Mayer et
al. (1995), who proposed that trust is “the willingness of a party to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the
other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective
of the ability to monitor or control that other part”. In the context of
assessment, this implies that an individual has made a choice to take the risk
of being evaluated by another party of individuals. This other party may be
people involved in an assessment system (e.g. summative assessments) or people
that have direct contact with the individual (e.g. teacher-student or
student-student).

The
impact of (dis)trust in school assessments

High
levels of trust tend to increase efficiency by reducing costs and increasing
output (Pierre & Rothstein, 2016). In this instance, high levels of trust
in assessment may increase positive student outcomes and reduce efforts
invested by students, teachers or school administrators. But what does it mean
to trust assessment? Researchers have suggested that this refers to having
confidence that:

• the assessment is developed and administered in a
  professional manner (Carless, 2009; Hoey & Nault, 2002)
• appropriate
  actions are taken with respect to the data generated (Hoey & Nault,
  2002; Leighton & Bustos Gómez, 2018)

These
two aspects of trust stretch across all forms of assessments that are conducted
in schools. In summative assessments (e.g. end of year examinations,
portfolios), knowledge and skills assessed need to be representative of their
learning and pegged at an appropriate level of difficulty. Data generated from
the results aid in determining whether the student is sufficiently competent
for advancement or evaluating the effectiveness of instructional programs. In
formative assessments (e.g. probing questions, homework, peer assessments),
teachers need to provide feedback in a manner so that students can benefit from
the feedback. Data from formative assessments are usually solely evaluated by
the teacher and provide the necessary information to adjust teaching and
learning processes.

Low
levels of trust in assessments are likely to result in negative outcomes.
Specifically, a distrust in assessments may be reflected in lower student
motivation and lower risk-taking behaviours (Hoey & Nault, 2002; Knight,
2002; Carless, 2009). Table 1 illustrates some examples of sources of distrust
that may cause such outcomes.

Table
1

Sources
of distrust in assessments

Motivational
issues can arise from assessment tasks that are consistently set at a higher
difficulty level than what was expected in the curriculum or assessment scores
that are consistently biased (Finn, 2015). Whilst it may seem reasonable to set
a few difficult questions in each assessment task to differentiate students’
ability levels, teachers may want to consider the students’ perceptions of the
interpretations of the assessment scores. If there are a number of difficult
questions, students may perceive that the scores are norm-referenced (i.e. to
rank the students) instead of criterion-referenced (i.e. to assess achievement
level). This may run counter to the aim of getting students to learn from their
errors and work towards mastery of the subject. Lower motivation

Assessment
scores that are consistently biased may occur in subjects where there are
higher levels of subjectivity in the grading. Many of these subjects would doubtless
use essays as a means to assess higher order thought processes, but marking
essays are extremely susceptible to many forms on inconsistencies (Fleming,
1999), such as differing expectations between teachers or sub-conscious
biasness within a teacher. The lack of trust in the above two instances is
often surfaced through maladaptive behaviours as students may deem it futile to
prepare for the assessment and focus their efforts elsewhere.

Lower
risk-taking

Teachers
and students may end up taking less “risk” when inappropriate actions or
decisions are made with regards to the information gathered from assessments
(Winstone & Carless, 2021). When designing assessment tasks or setting
examination questions, teachers need to be certain that the data collected from
the assessment would have no adverse impact on themselves. For example, if
students’ grades were used as a gauge of teacher performance, teachers may fear
appearing incompetent in the eyes of their colleagues or to the school
management. Working under such fear-based environments may cause teachers to
set “safe” questions instead of meaningful questions to assess learning. At the
same time, teachers may end up using a surface learning approach in their
lessons, that is getting students to memorize answers for the assessments,
instead of focusing on understanding and application (Knight, 2002).

For
formative assessments to be effective, students have to take the risk of
appearing incompetent by divulging any misconceptions to teachers or their
peers (Carless, 2009). When the subsequent actions of the teacher do not match
the interpretations of the data obtained, this will likely result in students
discounting any form of feedback. Students may end up ‘faking good’ (Carless,
2009), that is to say presenting themselves as knowing more than their actual
ability. Teachers may want to consider that the trustworthiness of their
actions is dependent on perceptions of competency and integrity (Davis &
Dargusch, 2015). Students need to be confident that teachers or peers have a
minimum level of disciplinary knowledge and have acted in their best interests.

Enhancing
trust in school assessments

Two
possible strategies to minimize the negative impact of distrust and that can be
implemented by teachers are outlined here, namely creating transparency in the
assessment process and facilitating collaboration between teachers and
students. Nonetheless, educators should be aware that building trust is not a
once-off process, but a continuous process.

First,
transparency breeds trust (Carless, 2009). Communicating to students (and
parents) the thoughts behind certain assessment processes not only develops
trust, it also helps students in pinpointing their weaknesses and setting goals
for improvement. For example, teachers could share with students how items in
an examination are calibrated to assess different levels of cognitive learning,
thus providing students with confidence that the examinations are set at a fair
level of difficulty. Furthermore, teachers could communicate the marking
process to students, such as the allocation of marks or interpretations of
rubrics. This could identify the limitations in students’ work and may give a
clearer picture of the performance levels required to excel.

Furthermore,
significant changes to the assessment system or processes are additional
arguments for transparency. Modifications to summative assessments can occur
with the inclusion of addition elements such as performance assessments or
portfolios. Likewise, modifications to formative assessments can occur with the
employment of new teachers or new technological tools. Change in any system
causes instability and tends to erode trust (Carless, 2009). A buffer to the
erosion usually begins with openness and honesty on the changes.

Second,
collaboration generates trust (Hoey & Nault, 2002). Collaborative
activities tend to foster trust in two ways: it provides opportunities for
people to interact and build relationships and it creates a sense of shared
responsibility (Kochanek, 2005). Teachers can work with other teachers to
design assessment tasks. Teachers can also collaborate with students to
facilitate formative assessment and feedback activities. For example, Leighton
and Bustos Gómez (2018) proposed establishing a pedagogical alliance between
students and teachers, that uses explicit verbal communication strategies, to
enhance formative assessments. Winstone and Carless (2021) discussed the rise
of the “student voice” and suggested that students be assigned active roles in
feedback practices.

Conclusion

In
summary, trusting assessments is paramount for any school. Low levels of trust
tend to be detrimental to student outcomes and steps may need to be taken to
increase confidence in assessment. Hopefully, this piece will serve as a spark
for discussion for future conversations.

References

Carless, D. (2009). Trust,
distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79-89.

Davis, S. E., & Dargusch,
J. M. (2015). Feedback, iterative processing and academic trust-teacher
education students’ perceptions of assessment feedback. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(1), 177-191.

Finn, B. (2015). Measuring
motivation in low‐stakes assessments. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(2),
1-17.

Fleming, N. D. (1999).
Biases in marking students’ written work: quality. Assessment matters
in higher education: choosing and using diverse approaches, 83-92.

Hoey, J., & Nault, E.
(2002). Trust: The missing ingredient in assessment. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 117-127.

Knight, P. T. (2002).
Summative assessment in higher education: practices in disarray. Studies
in Higher Education, 27(3), 275-286.

Kochanek, J. R.
(2005). Building trust for better schools: Research-based practices.
Corwin Press.

Leighton, J. P., &
Bustos Gómez, M. C. (2018). A pedagogical alliance for trust, wellbeing and the
identification of errors for learning and formative assessment. Educational
Psychology, 38(3), 381-406.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H.,
& Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Pierre, J., & Rothstein,
B. (2016). Reinventing Weber: The Role of Institutions in Creating Social
Trust. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management,
421–432.

Winstone, N. E., &
Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and
quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1-18.