Replies to This Discussion
Reply by Sandra Peterson
In drawing a distinction between what they call the letter and spirit of assessment for learning, my early years of teaching came back to me. Then, only the letter would have been evident. I began my career under the direction of a principal who thought that the six point lesson plan was the best thing since sliced bread. If he walked in our classroom, he expected to see books out on the desk, students working from the chapters within, and the teacher standing in the front of the room dictating if their answers were right or wrong through the process of "guided practice" Then the students were expected to show their knowledge through "independent practice." Even the part about the teacher pausing after a student's wrong answer and waiting for another pupil to volunteer the right answer sounded all too familiar to me. As I stated earlier, in another post, I had not received any training on assessment in college; therefore, I had no concept that what I was doing was defective in any way. If fact, my principal was very happy with me, (he must have not had this class) and I thought I was an effective instructor. I can easily see now that constantly following this six point lesson plan left no room for critical thinking, or challenged students to think about their learning in a variety of ways. To me, this is sticking to the letter, and as a beginning teacher, I was expected to do just that.
In contrast today, some twenty years later, I can happily say that I adhere more to the spirit. My students are allowed to express what they have learned in a variety of ways. Critical thinking and higher order thinking skills are at the top of my priority list. I use rubrics, that students often help me design, to assess learning. I want my students to think about their thinking. What do I contribute to my change of instructional technique over the years? There are many contributing factors, such as all of the training I had in gifted education, going through the National Board process, teaching experience, but the one factor that changed my way of thinking the most was the expressions on my students' faces. I would love to apology to my first few classes for all of those days and hours they sat and went through chapter after chapter in a textbook. Today, my students are engaged and are part of the learning process instead of sitting there like funnels having information poured into them.
On a side note, we currently have a student teacher at our school that is struggling to develop her lesson plans She came and ask me for assistance the other day. When I ask her why she was struggling so, she pulled out that old six-point lesson plan form and informed me that her student teacher supervisor wanted all of their lessons done in this format. She wanted so much to be in the spirit, but felt that she is now being forced to stick to the letter. Of course, I wanted to scream!
Reply by Cyndi Austin
I am an educator with 18 years experience and although I risk alienating my classmates and others in my profession, I must preface my answer to this question with a confession….I agree with and I support the concept of accountability testing such as the EOC’s and EOG’s. I believe this accountability concept has encouraged (forced) teachers to move from the “letter” (transmission of knowledge) of assessment to the “spirit” (essence of knowledge) of assessment as described by Marshall and Drummond and interpreted by me. In fact, I would even submit that proof of this statement can be found in those (high school) courses which are not subjected to the state’s accountability test. That is not to say that the teachers of those courses are not educating students. However, it is to say that without accountability measures the motivation that drives the “spirit” of assessment for learning may be noticeably absent in those courses. An informal look into the assessments given to the students in those classes may prove my point.
Before the implementation of the state’s accountability tests many teachers (me included) would go to the file cabinet every day, day after day for 180 days. The same notes, overheads, worksheets, and tests were used every year with no regard for individual students or various learning styles. The SCOS served more as a guide for suggested topics and with no pacing guide or summative assessment a teacher could “camp out” on their favorite subject matter.
It is my opinion that over the past 15 years a paradigm shift in education has taken place by educators. The notion that the teachers teach and the students learn has given way to a partnership between the teacher who is now the adult learner and the student, who is the independent, life-long learner in the making. However, as Marshall and Drummond state, the only way this partnership can be successful is if the teacher creates a progressive classroom environment which engages students in high order thinking skills, application, and understanding. In this way the teacher ignites the life-force or “spirit” behind a quality education rather than promoting the transmission or “letter” of knowledge.
Although I completely disagree with the state actions in changing the emphasis of the EOC’s from 25% to all or nothing 3 or 4, I believe that these tests are the motivating factor behind the improvement of classroom practices as it relates to formative assessment. For the sake of our student’s education we can no longer afford to go to the archives in our file cabinet.
Reply by Anna Lankford
As I read the article by Marshall and Drummond, I tried to think back to my teaching experiences to times I exhibited characteristics of "letter" and "spirit" of assessment for learning. From what I gathered in the article sticking to the letter is very teacher directed and encourages convergent thinking on the part of the students. The spirit is a progression toward independent learning and divergent thinking on the part of the student. The teacher is more of a faciliatator in the process.
Most of my teaching experience is in two different grades, kindergarten and third grade. When I think back on the two different experiences, I could probably categorize them into sticking to the letter and the spirit of assessment for learning. My third grade experience would be more of the sticking to the letter because of the pressures I felt from the EOG testing and accountability. I felt I needed to be in charge of my students' learning at all times in order to get them prepared for the EOG test in May. In kindergarten I could see the pressure of testing relieved and I adhered to the spirit of assessment for learning. I allowed students to take control of their learning more and became more of a facilitator to their learning. My lesson plans changed daily depending on the day-to-day observations I made about my students ( I just did not know then that it was assessment for learning). Now as I work as an Instructional Specialist I hope I can encourage teachers to adhere to the spirit of assessment of learning no matter what grade they may teach so that we encourage students to become independent and life-long learners.
Reply by Callie Grubb
As stated in the article, lesson plans that have the "letter" of assessment for learning (AFL) are plans that have only AFL procedures in place. Lesson plans with the "spirit" of AFL, on the other hand, are those that actually practice AFL procedures. In otherwords, the "spirit" practices what AFL is all about. A teacher who fully implements assessments for learning creates educational experiences in which students are in control of their learning. This student autonomy can be demonstrated in classroom discussions, homework, and even testing.
I think teachers are often afraid to follow the "spirit" of AFL. First, this is something that wasn't really taught in teacher education programs (as Sandra mentioned). While pursuing my teaching license, I never had a professor suggest that education should be student led. Second, for some teachers, student autonomy can mean giving up control of one's classroom. In an educational world focused on accountability this can be very scary. Also, some teachers may feel that the promotion of student independence can result in a lack of classroom management. Teachers like all professionals fear the unknown.
For those teachers who are not afraid to step outside the box, I believe the "spirit" of AFL can be very rewarding. In this type of environment, I see the teacher in a facilitator type role. The teacher guides students in the learning process. The teachers does not talk at the students but with the students. Classroom activities and projects have endless possibilities in which student can use their imagination and critical thinking skills to demonstrate knowledge. Students can also work together to facilitate the learning process.
This reading helped me to see concrete examples of the classroom practices (questioning, feedback, peer and self assessment, and sharing criteria with the learner) discussed in the Black et al. article. I think this is very worthwhile read that can shared in a faculty meeting or PLC discussion.
Reply by Jennifer Blankenship
When I finished reading the Marshall and Drummond article I could not stop thinking about the schools’ mission statements I have read which stated a mission of making students life-long learners. Are we really, or are we simply engaging students in giving us prescribed answers? Are we using the “spirit” side of AfL or the letter of AfL?
I just had a discussion with my principal today about the latest 9 week assessment scores and the teacher’s reflections of those scores. He was very disappointed in the fact many of the teacher’s stated the fall in scores was due to the lack of effort on the students’ part. He said that many teachers did not take any responsibility for the lower scores nor did they give any suggestions on how they could improve their strategies to reach these students. He asked me if it was not the teachers’ job to ensure students were learning. Yes, teachers earn the paycheck to teach students. Throughout the conversation I thought of the article and Angela’s responses to the interviews. It really stuck when she respond that “all lessons give her an opportunity to develop her craft of teaching.” If I and other teachers would take time to reflect on our lessons and daily interaction with students and ask ourselves did we help equip students with the skills to become those life-long learners progress could be made. I put myself at the top of this list. I believe we should set the bar high and expect the very best from students but do I really stick to this? I can think of occasions when a student just wasn’t getting it and I lowered my expectation. One reason is because I had to move on due to the time constraints of the pacing guide and another reason is I simply gave up on that student ever getting it.
This article also helped to solidify the fact that students need the time for self-discovery going on the “spirit” of AfL. I try to incorporate many projects and rubric scored assignments. I have attempted several times to have students create the criteria for scoring rubrics. This has been a challenge but improves with practice. Once students have experience with several of their projects being assessed with a rubric they understand the basic criteria. Students also tend to be harder on one another. Another activity that I have seen positive results from that goes back to the article is the opportunity to perform skits to define vocabulary words. At the beginning of the school year students were failing their weekly vocabulary tests so we knew something had to change with our teaching of these words. We began letting small groups of students create a short skit to illustrate the meaning of the word. At first students were very timid and begged not to participate out of fear more than anything. However, about the third week a total change occurred, because now they were begging to “act it out.” The shift of power was made; students were now responsible for teaching the words, not just the teacher standing in front of the room explaining them. Students are also responsible for grading one another on the effectiveness of their skits.
If we are serious about creating life-long learners we really must guide students to “pupil autonomy” and embrace the classroom as learning centers for us as well. We must engage in conversations with our students and share the learning responsibilities with them. Many times they will surprise us when we insist they stretch their brains.
Reply by Mickey Morehead
I am a lateral entry teacher with eight years of experience. As I read the article the letter reminded me of how I taught during my early years. I had no formal training on assessment as I progressed through my program and was made very aware of state testing and the impact it has on judging school performance. As I have progressed as an educator throughout the years I can see I am moving toward more of the spirit of AfL. I have come to realize that students can only take so much teacher led instruction. They do need some autonomy in their educational lives. I also agree with the earlier statement that EOG's and EOC's have helped in making sure we as teachers cover all the SCOS and not only the portions we are comfortable with and/or like the most.
Throughout the article there was mentions of different strategies used to help acomplish AfL. I feel the really hard part is the development of these different assessment techniques because most administrators (at least the ones I come in contact with) are not offering that subject as professional development opportunities. Because of pressure from the state required tests they are more concerned with the letter of AfL to help make sure we are reaching our goals.