Measuring Teachers’ Assessment for Learning (AfL) Classroom Practices in Elementary Schools

Zita Lysaght, Michael O’Leary, Larry Ludlow


APA 6th edition
Lysaght, Z., O’Leary, M., & Ludlow, L. (2014). Measuring Teachers’ Assessment for Learning (AfL) Classroom Practices in Elementary Schools. IJEM - International Journal of Educational Methodology, 3(2), 103-115. doi:10.12973/ijem.3.2.103

Harvard
Lysaght Z., O’Leary M., and Ludlow L. 2014 'Measuring Teachers’ Assessment for Learning (AfL) Classroom Practices in Elementary Schools', IJEM - International Journal of Educational Methodology , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 103-115. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/ijem.3.2.103

Chicago 16th edition
Lysaght, Zita , O’Leary, Michael and Ludlow, Larry . "Measuring Teachers’ Assessment for Learning (AfL) Classroom Practices in Elementary Schools". (2014)IJEM - International Journal of Educational Methodology 3, no. 2(2014): 103-115. doi:10.12973/ijem.3.2.103

Abstract

Assessment for Learning (AfL) may be conceptualized as minute-to-minute, day-by-day interactions between learners and teachers with the improvement of learning as the principal focus. This paper traces the development of an AfL measurement instrument (scale) that can be used for research purposes prior to, during and following professional development in the area. Rasch measurement procedures were applied to data drawn from a convenience sample of 594 teachers from 44 elementary schools in Ireland to create a scale consisting of 20 items distributed across four key AfL assessment strategies: learning intentions and success criteria, questioning and classroom discussion, feedback, and peer-and self-assessment.  This scale, the Assessment for Learning Measurement instrument (AfLMi), has good psychometric properties and is interpretable in a way that makes it potentially useful during system wide improvement initiatives focused on AfL.

Keywords: Assessment for learning measurement instrument, Rasch measurement, Formative assessment, Teacher professional development.


References

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.

Apple, M. W. (2012). Education and power (Revised Routledge Classic ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education. [on-line] available http://pfe.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/08/22/1478210316664259.abstract

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5-25.

Burns, T., & Koster, F. (Eds). (2016). Governing education in a complex world. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1), 117-140.

Black, P. (2010). Keynote address to the Cambridge Assessment Conference.  [on-line] available http://www.policyreview.tv/video/501/2500

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 21, 5-31.

Chappuis, S., Commodore, C., & Stiggins, R. (2017). Balanced assessment systems: Leadership, quality, and the role of classroom assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cizek, G. J., Bunch, M. B., & Koons, H (2004). Setting performance standards: Contemporary methods. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 23(4), 31–50.

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.

DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: What is it and how do we measure it? Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 28, 251–272.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2010). The 2009 national assessments of mathematics and reading. [on-line] available http://www.erc.ie/

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learning from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399

Fullan, M. (2015). Leadership from the middle: A system strategy.  [on-line] available https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LeadershipfromtheMiddle_EdCan_v55no4.pdf

Gleeson, M., Sugrue, C., & O’Flaherty, J. (2017). Research capacity and initial teacher education reform: Irish experiences, international perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 19-29.

Hargreaves, D. (2004).  Personalising learning—2: student voice and assessment for learning. London: SST.

Hooge, E. (2016). Making multiple school accountability work. In T. Burns, & F. Koster (Eds.),  Governing education in a complex world (pp. 93-112 ). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (2016). (Eds.). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. UK: Policy Press.

James, M. (2011). Assessment for learning: Research and policy in the (dis) United Kingdom. In R. Berry, & B. Adamson, (Eds.), Assessment reform in education. Policy and practice (pp. 15-32). London: Springer.

Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 16(3), 263–268.

 

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.

Ludlow, L.H., & Haley, S.M. (1995). Rasch model logits: Interpretation, use, and transformation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 967-975.

Lysaght, Z. (2009). From balkanisation to boundary crossing: Using a teacher learning community to explore the impact of assessment on teaching and learning in a disadvantaged school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, Dublin.

Lysaght, Z. (2010). Assessment for learning and teacher learning communities: Warranted strategies worthy of consideration. InTouch, 112, 49-51.

Lysaght, Z., & O’Leary, M. (2013). An instrument to audit teachers’ use of assessment for learning. Irish Educational Studies, 32(2). doi: 10.1080/03323315.2013.784636.

Lysaght, Z., & O’Leary, M. (2017). Scaling up, writ small: using an assessment for learning audit instrument to stimulate site-based professional development, one school at a time. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(2), 271-289.

Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45. 

Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage in assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research in Education, 21(2), 133-149.

Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 2(2), 155-175.

Nyquist, J. B. (2003). The benefits of reconstructing feedback as a larger system of formative assessment: A meta-analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Opfer, V.D. (2011).  Conceptualizing teacher professional development. Review of Educational Research,  81(3),  376-407.

Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 85–102.

Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1960).

Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher 29(7), 4-14.

Shute, V. J. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Stiggins, R. J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.

Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser, and M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence Volume 3 (pp. 37-54). UK: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

Thompson, M., & Goe, L. (2006). Models for effective and scalable teacher professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.

Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.

Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 1-7.

Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating Formative Assessment: teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Wiliam, D. (2007). Five "key strategies" for effective formative assessment. Reston, VA. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Wright, B. D., & Linacre, M. (1998). WINSTEPS. Chicago: MESA Press.

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1983). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.

Wright, B. D., & Stone, M.  (1979). Best test design.  Chicago: MESA Press.

Wylie, C. (Ed.). (2008). Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts: ETS Report RR-08-29. Princeton, NJ: ETS.