The Guiding Light

Michael Quiñones

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Quiñones 1

Abstract

The following literature review examines the effects of formative assessment, in public high schools with regard to its use in social studies, and the impact of this strategy toward promoting the self-efficacy and motivation of students. Several scholarly educational journal articles, related to the educational psychological principle of self-efficacy, were consulted in order to gain a deeper insight into the potential value of facilitating motivation for adolescent learning by providing descriptive, detailed written feedback. This analytical literature review examines two types of formative assessments: benchmark multiple choice testing and essay writing (especially prompted, specifically directed essays that are timed). Within this review I include a series of three vignettes based on several recent personal teaching experiences that utilized many of the research based strategies developed and tested by some of the most well known scholars in the fields of self-efficacy and formative assessment. Based on the convergence between my understandings, ethical beliefs and educational philosophy, and the literature cited in this review, I offer insights and critiques into some of the more practical benefits of using formative assessment to promote and enhance the self-efficacy of students. Further research forays, by me or others, may later yield additional tangible data in the area of how such strategies impact different populations of students (i.e. high, middle and low socio-economically impacted groups). Based on the three vignettes that follow there are several compelling reasons to believe that teacher dispositions and expectations may also have substantial impacts on the potential success of formative assessments. Less socio-scientific, however, is the less quantifiably measurable effect of what I term teacher finesse which is somewhat akin to the well known concept of teacher “withitness” (Kounin, 1958).

Keywords: formative assessment, self-efficacy, descriptive feedback, benchmark testing, teacher disposition, teacher finesse

Quiñones 2

Harkening back to my earliest memory of lesson planning for a United States History class, as a student teacher, I thought was certain to draw the graphite from students’ pencils onto paper, my assumptions—indeed false assumptions—about what motivates students was severely tested. Before the expanded and popular use of the internet in the mid 1990s, college undergrads often shared information in person during class and at other times, even more primitively, by passing sheets of paper around class with ideas that eventually made their way to the instructor. In this particular case the professor prompted student teachers in my cohort about what lessons and/or intellectual challenges would be thrown out to students on that first day. The litany of strategies, lessons and odd items ranged the gamut from A to Z. Beside or below each intended strategy were peer questions or comments of support and excitement about potential ideas. Below, beneath or beside my intended strategy was nothing—a big fat zero. Frankly, I was mystified because I was absolutely certain that my idea was without question the best way to motivate my 16 and 17 year olds to want to learn about the exciting, captivating wonders of United States History. My idea: have students read the entire text of Booker T. Washington’s contemporarily famous 1895 Atlanta Compromise speech before the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia. In my mind’s eye, prior to disseminating Washington’s text of the message of “casting your buckets where you are” was pragmatic, pertinent and extremely relevant to what every disheartened, hopeless and demoralized American could relate to. The speeches were smartly printed, collated, stapled and distributed to students, and paragraphs were assigned to random students to read aloud in class. There was no “win one for the Gipper” moment as I had planned.

The students were unmoved, untouched, and frankly, indifferent to Washington’s plea for conciliation and patience among American blacks with regard to their second class status within the United States. I was secretly crushed, disappointed, confused, and disheartened because of the

Quiñones 3

students’ lack of interest in what I had put before them. I questioned whether the period language

caused the message to lose meaning in translation, which I suppose caused some disengagement in some students, but there was certainly enough diversity in that class to interest more than a fair share of students. Also, one might think that because Booker T. Washington was an early black civil rights champion, albeit conservative, and in some quarters considered far too patient, that maybe the subject was inappropriate for the population because they could not relate; the class was evenly split racially among the 38 or so students with white, black, Asian, and Hispanic students. I never asked students why the activity fell flat by using a questionnaire or asking them verbally. But it became apparent over the course of the following 3 months that motivation was connected to their ability to relate the lives of historical figures to their own. Although in 1995 the U.S. economy was on a downswing with stark recessionary pressures, the average teenaged student did not have problems obtaining employment, and in a city as diverse as New York racial tensions, although present in various subtle forms, was nowhere near the climate that existed during the height of the Reconstruction era Deep South. According to Dale Schunk (1999) students have to realize, visualize if you will, a sense of their future potential in what he calls achievement motivation. For my class there was no such obstacle, they were simply reading an innocuous, soulless text of some dead guy from long ago. I have not used that document in the past 17 years since but if I were to use it again its use would look very different. I have since learned the value of accessing the prior knowledge of students as a catalyst of motivation (Alvarez, 1990). Confronting students with a highly plausible situation requiring them to internalize a sense of immediacy with a scenario intended to shock them would make more real the historical realities of people who lived during the time of Booker T. Washington (i.e. your job was just taken away and given to someone else because of their skin color) could more effectively serve as a bridge to the speech and have students thinking about the context of his message. There is no way to know for certain if that strategy would have worked better with my

Quiñones 4

first group of students but I suspect their level of motivation—attention or engagement if you will—might have increased with the aforementioned activation strategy. Theories of self-efficacy as advocated by educational psychologists seem tied to the notion of students’ realization that they see, or are aware of, students with similar levels of skill. That is to say, when sharing writing samples publicly in view of the rest of their peers, seeing students of similar ability has a positive effect that demonstrates to them that whatever perceived strengths, weaknesses, skills and deficiencies they have there exist others just like them (Schunk, 2003). The perception that students can have success, even gradual successes, can make the difference between future success or failure. The link between sustained motivation and sense of self-efficacy is a powerful base of knowledge awareness that thoughtful, intentional teachers are well served to access. I am reminded of a conversation I once overheard two elementary school teachers having with each other regarding their respective decision making processes about which work samples they displayed on the outside walls of their classrooms. Few people have ever walked through an elementary school hallway without seeing streams of seasonal themed snowflakes, autumn leaves, reindeer or spring flower drawings of wide ranging abilities. One of the teachers said she displayed only the best examples while the other responded in a genuinely, motherly sympathetic tone that she proudly “put them all up.” The ostensible reason for the latter decision was likely an attempt to promote and enhance student self-efficacy and provide opportunities for students to see work from others that might look and read like theirs.

To be sure, some educators, might believe—and reasonably so—that the reverse might in fact work better. That is to say, students whose non-exemplary work that did not make the “wall of fame” might strive to produce better work or work harder. In some cases that may indeed be the case, such as in competitive sports, but is the potential disengagement or de-motivation in vital academic skill acquisition of students worth the risk? Certainly, such strategic decisions should be considered and

Quiñones 5

implemented with careful consideration of the varied dispositions of students and a thorough evaluation of what students can and cannot handle emotionally. These types of data sets take time

to acquire and require the intentionally measured cultivation of rapport with each student. Also, the types of assignments selected and the corresponding types of feedback have enormous possible consequences on the levels of motivation and subsequent sense of self-efficacy (Black, 2003; Dweck, 1986; Schunk, 2003).

Recent social studies curriculum reform efforts have increasingly stressed the use of more analytical writing. Organizations such as the AP College Board, and more recently the Educational Testing Service with their 2005 essay addition to the Scholastic Aptitude Test, have included substantial writing components to evaluate and assess students’ capacity to construct meaning from primary source documents and content based prompts. In order develop self-efficacy and enhanced ability of all students to meet the lofty standards set by such organizations teachers at the middle, and particularly high school level, should be mindful of the need to introduce, teach, model, correct, and reinforce effective writing strategies aimed at producing students capable of conveying their analyses with coherent support from available resources and outside knowledge gained from class room learning and research (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall & Wiliam, 2003). Faulty assumptions about existing student levels of ability based on non-linear student-teacher interactions can create unintended consequences that set back student motivation unnecessarily. Students who demonstrate masterful abilities to convey meaning and analyses in verbal class room discussion do not necessarily possess the same ability to share similar ideas in writing. In many cases the reason for the lack of transfer of skills from verbalizing to writing is often the direct result of teachers taking for granted that strong speakers do not require detailed feedback with regard to their writing. “Surely Tamika and Arnold write just as well as they speak” makes logical sense until you consider that speaking in open forums such as a class room in response to free flowing conversation seldom

Quiñones 6

requires students to prepare, revise and reflect on their thoughts. Students have entrée to reverse course in mid streams of consciousness in response to the arguments of their peers without regard to the formalized structure of an analytical essay which require a beginning, middle and an end (at the very least). “Off the cuff” comments rarely read as easily when written in essay form and often become confused and unintelligible when considering the introduction of quotes and citations.

Adolescent students at all levels, including high school, benefit from introduction of every aspect of the discipline of skills such as analytical writing (Conklin, 2010). Where else will students acquire and learn many of the finer points of critical thinking as it manifests in writing if not from their teachers? I have certainly been guilty of assuming that students possessed requisite skills, acquired previous to their arrival in my classes, to respond to higher level essay prompts without adequate training and coaching by me. By and large those assumptions have resulted in initially poor student outcomes, needless plunges in student motivation, and valuable time lost to remediation due to invalid assessments based on skills that were not explicitly taught. Teachers who do not quickly recognize and reflect on this deficiency and do not shift instruction to correct deficiencies accordingly risk decimating existing levels of student self-efficacy related to stated tasks (Craven, Marsh & Debus, 1991).

In an Advanced Placement United States History course I taught in rural North Carolina I had the number 1 student in class rank that was extremely intrinsically motivated, ambitious and ready to please her teacher. Every effort was made by the student to curry favor and cultivate opportunities for extra credit when possible. Since no extra credit was afforded to students, she was often the most vocal and willing participant in class discussions. Although there were no explicit grade implications stated on the course syllabus related to class participation I believed her behavior was a sincere effort in trying to engage the curriculum and maximize her learning and for all intents and purposes that was the case. Upon looking at this student’s transcript I saw she had earned straight As in all of her

Quiñones 7

classes from 9th to 11th grade. I was particularly pleased to see she earned exemplary grades in her English classes which led me to believe she was a proficient writer. However, despite the fact that

her verbal participation met or exceeded that of her peers I was disappointed to discover that her ability to articulate cogent analytical arguments was at or below that of her peers. After conferencing with her previous and current English teachers I discovered that, especially in previous English classes, writing was a very small portion of the instructional and assessment components or an identified area of needed growth. Additionally, I also consulted her previous social studies teachers who reported that either writing assignments were minimalist or that she also demonstrated as one teacher said “the same problems with writing that other students struggle with.” Being the curious—and incredulous—teacher that I am I asked all of these teachers what strategies they employed to improve her ability write critically. I received a woeful series of disorganized laments about pacing, the lack of standardized tests of writing in social studies and assorted excuses which seemed to explain the stunted development of this student. She was clearly bright and willing to do the work required to improve but her subpar products were rewarded with high grades which validated poorly crafted writing. It is a rather unfortunate truth, based on my personal experience teaching at 8 different high schools, that descriptive written feedback is indeed a rarity. Many teachers admit that grading writing is perhaps the most daunting, tedious and time consuming task one encounters.