1. Formative assessment and student success Mantz Yorke

2. A typology of formative assessment Probably the main approach in HE Where circumstances permit Via peer assessment activities Over coffee or in the bar Problems if assessor is mentor, supervisor In work-based situations Only if an assessment requirement Where student is acting self-critically From Formal Informal Teachers Peers Others Self

3. Formative assessment … implies no more (and no less) than a discerning judgement about [a] learner’s progress; it is ‘on-going’ in the sense that it goes on all the time; and it is formative in so far as its purpose is forward-looking, aiming to improve future learning (as distinct from the retrospective nature of summative assessment). Greenwood et al. (2001, p.109)

4. Formative assessment Black and Wiliam’s meta-analysis showed a size effect of 0.7 … formative assessment does improve learning … The gains in achievement [are] among the largest ever reported for educational interventions. Black and Wiliam (1998, p.61)

5. However, there are weaknesses...

6. Weaknesses (Subject Review etc.) In 49 per cent of cases, marking systems could be improved particularly in respect of feedback to students. This sometimes lacked a critical edge, gave few helpful comments and failed to indicate to students ways in which improvement could be made. QAA (2001, para 28: Subject overview report, Education) See also QAA (2004) Learning from Subject Review and Learning from higher education in further education colleges in England

7. Weaknesses (Foundation Degrees) Students of about one-half of the programmes experience some variation in the quality of written formative feedback. It is not always clear to students how their assessed work could be improved. In five cases review teams highlight this as a serious problem. QAA (2003, para 56: Review of 33 Foundation Degrees)

8. Formative assessment is a more complex matter than some may appreciate can be construed as a signalling system has an important personal dimension

9. Assessment task Assessor interprets Grade, feedback Student interprets Student interprets Criteria Tutor/assessor Student performs Tutor/assessor’s self-learning Teacher characteristics Subject structure Program specification Student’s self-theories, general development

10. Employability; broader personal effectiveness Subject under- standing Meta- cognition Skilful practices in context Personal qualities, including self-theories and efficacy beliefs E S U M The USEM account

11. The importance of ‘the personal’ Malleable v. fixed self-theoryDweck (1999) Learning > performance goalsDweck (1999) Emotional stateBoekaerts (2003) Locus of controlRotter (1966) Self-efficacyBandura (1997) Learned optimismSeligman (1998) Practical intelligenceSternberg (1997) Emotional intelligenceGoleman (1996)

12. Academic and practical intelligence Very many successful lawyers … are not all that bright. Some of our best judges do not shine intellectually. Becoming a good lawyer requires a mixture of talents, of which the intelligence revealed by the proposed [university entry] tests is only one. Equally, many bright people have proved to be rubbish lawyers. Marcel Berlins, on the proposal by 8 top universities to devise an entry examination to complement A-level The Guardian G2, 10 February 2004, p.17

13. Child……Young adult………………………………….Senior IQ

14. Child……Young adult………………………………….Senior IQ Practical intelligence

15. The virtue of small steps … I found having large blocks of work without assessment difficult – you don’t know if you are grasping it or not until exam time! Assignments weekly would be better from my point of view. [Female in her 30s, pursuing a science-based FD programme]

16. The virtue of small steps … The less individuals believe in themselves, the more they need explicit, proximal, and frequent feedback of progress that provides repeated affirmations of their growing capabilities. Bandura (1997, p.217)

17. … and of supportive feedback Students observed that feedback was given in such a way that they did not feel it was rejecting or discouraging... [and] that feedback procedures assisted them in forming accurate perceptions of their abilities and establishing internal standards with which to evaluate their own work Mentkowski and Associates (2000, p.82)

18. Knowledge gain: effect sizes Meta-analyses Size N studies Self-system (E of USEM) 0.74 147 Metacognition (M) 0.72 556 Marzano (1998)

19. Towards greater autonomy Probably the main approach in HE Where circumstances permit Via peer assessment activities Over coffee or in the bar Problems if assessor is mentor, supervisor In work-based situations Only if an assessment requirement Where student is acting self-critically From Formal Informal Teachers Peers Others Self

20. Threats 1.The concern with standards 2.The legacy of the ‘scientific measurement’ paradigm 3.Increased student/staff ratios 4.Unitisation of curricula 5.Research etc. 6.Students maximising the ratio of grade/effort

21. Learning Traditional programme based on year-long units Form Asst Form Asst Summ Asst Academic year Summ Asst Learning Summ Asst Learning Modular programme based on semesters Formative Assessment? A challenge for modularity

22. Successful ‘WP institutions’ Inter alia Emphasise early formative assessment Are committed to the support of students Accentuate the social in programmes

23. Change Educational change is technically simple and socially complex Fullan (2001, p.69) There is no quick fix