How can I effectively manage students’ learning take
account of self-assessment within MFL?
Researcher: Karen Collins
Westwood St. Thomas School, Salisbury, Wiltshire
Educational Enquiry Assignment
Master's level programme,
The University of Bath
January 2003
Introduction
“Why did I not get Level 5 like him? We did our work together”
“I wrote 5 more sentences than her, and I still only got a Level
4-even though there was only three mistakes in it. Why did I bother with
all that effort?”
Comments from students within Year 9 (Spring 2002)
“One of the most frustrating things is when I do not get the chance
to improve my work. It would be good if teachers could give us a clear
idea and the time to do this”
Comment by Shane Garvin, Year 10 student at Westwood (November 2002)
It was the consistency of comments such as this from students, which
showed me the inadequacy of my own classroom practice in relation to students’
awareness of their own progression. The perceived need for students within
MFL to self-evaluate their own work, showing both comprehension of the
process and its outcomes, had also previously been highlighted not only
by subject staff, but also by three external influences. Firstly within
the school’s last Ofsted report (1998) as an area for development,
secondly within the school’s improvement plan 2001-2002 and thirdly
as an area for improvement within the 2002 internally conducted Faculty
review
“We are providing students with a student-friendly coursework mark
scheme, in order to help them to see where they are in terms of GCSE Grades.
This is problematic to say the least, as the only way this works is when
the work is corrected first…Is this true self-assessment?” (Comment
from MFL Head of Faculty during the assessment Teacher Training Day 14/10/2002)
Focusing on this area has combined strongly with my own teaching values,
in the fact that students should be given the opportunity to develop self-awareness
of their own progress and also have a clear idea of how to improve their
own work. This is a value that has been highlighted by myself in previous
research relating to awareness and autonomy within learning : Research
undertaken within the Faculty has been divided into practice within Key
Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. Both of these have informed the other, which
has led to a cycle of modification of the research objectives, changing
the focus of the research in the light of work with students .
Black (1998) sees this process as a “black box”, whereby the
process of input to output within the classroom is seen as paramount to
success. Following a discussion with a student who had read my previous
research, I began to see that the students within the classroom should
consciously inform this process. As Whitehead (2002) states “This
is the case where pupils are the experts. They are the ones who can really
inform the process” I therefore wished to engage the students as
central to the research, and utilise them as critical friends, capable
of adding an internal perspective to the research process, which I believe,
has better informed the practice taking place within the Faculty . This
was the start of a great journey for me.
The process
Whitehead (2002) looked into the status of pupils within Educational Action
Zone research. She states that “The use of pupil perspectives is
recognised as significant in raising standards” and that educators
should “recognise pupils’ social maturity and experience by
giving them responsibilities and opportunities to share decision making”,
further enhancing my own view that student involvement should be critical
to the success of the research.
Over the course of the research, I therefore began to centralise the direction
of the research not only on my own judgments in order to take the learning
forward, but increasingly to engage students as to the level of influence
they felt I was having upon the process of self-evaluation within their
own learning .
It became immediately apparent to myself as teacher-researcher that there
was a parallel issue present within the research, and that was of the
quality of relationships within the classroom. Unless students felt secure
to have their work scrutinised by peers, or felt safe to give opinions
within the classroom context, then the process of the evaluation itself
would be not only slowed but also would become artificial.
The first part of the process began in January 2002, when the MFL Department
perceived the student need to understand Attainment Target Levels as the
main form of summative assessment within Key Stage 3. As a consequence,
in collaboration with Middle School colleagues, a “student friendly”
list was compiled for each of the four Targets. This was also done in
consultation with the History Department at Westwood, which similarly
had devised a list of Key Stage 3 level descriptors in a series of “you
can” statements . As this “student friendly” list sat laminated
within my own classroom, similar to those of my colleagues, it soon became
apparent that whilst I could tell students where to refer in order to
better understand the summative and formative assessment that was being
undertaken, they had little understanding how these 4-5 sentence descriptions
related to their work .
It became clear, as a result of student comments and my own frustrations
at having to explain the reasons for certain assessments time and time
again, that I realised that not only did students need concrete examples
of what the different Attainment Target Levels looked like, but that formative
assessment alone was wholly inadequate at furthering students’ understanding
if students did not understand the comments made. This combined with a
need for students within Key Stage 4 to possess the skill of self-evaluation
with a view to re-drafting coursework to improve standards. Black (1998:5)
states that effective learning is an activity in which “students
have to be actively involved” and that “what is needed is a
culture of success, backed by a belief that all can succeed” I then
began to term feedback as “focusing on the quality of work whilst
giving advice on how to improve”. Utilising the students’ voice
in order to devise a series of bullet points of ways in which to improve
gave even low attainers the language they needed. By giving them ownership
over what the bullet points should contain, in connection with a good
understanding of the criteria for success, students were able to quickly
establish “a criteria for success” list . This was made through
construct-referenced criteria, which gave students examples of work at
varying attainment target levels Black (1998:100) states “pupils
should be trained in self-assessment so that they can understand the main
points of learning and thereby grasp what they need to do to achieve”
The next stage of the process was to allow students to engage in peer
assessment, in order to place the “criteria for success into practice”
Before engaging the students in this process, I commented the following
within my journal “Although this group are bright and capable of
this, I still had my doubts about the maturity of some to aid their partners
and also about the distinct split between student friendship groupings
within the set. If some gave over their work for inspection, and this
was returned with inappropriate or negative comments, then I felt the
trust within the group would not allow this type of work to continue”
(Comment from teacher-researcher journal September 2002)
Engaging the students in this process allows comparison with research
conducted by Whitehead (2002) and by Nottinghamshire County Council (2001).
In the research summary Whitehead states “There was therefore recognition
of a shared responsibility, that of the teacher for establishing conditions
conducive to learning and complementing this their own positive disposition
to learn through their interaction with the teacher, their relationship
with their peers and their own self discipline. What is interesting is
that more students were prepared to see learning as their responsibility”
Students within my own classroom appeared to recognise the responsibility
that they had been given with this task, and during the assessment-peer
feedback, all actively engaged with their partner in discussion at some
level. Within Nottinghamshire’s document “Providing for Able
Pupils” (2001) the following statement is included within the section
entitled “a consumer audit”; “If we are serious about our
desire to improve what happens within school and thereby raise standards,
we have to ask the consumers what they feel about the learning environment…they
often provide some telling and perceptive insights into what makes for
effective learning”
I would push even further with regards to the level of insight provided
by students, as I feel that we often undermine their capabilities and
rational thought in relation to their own learning. It is only through
allowing them the opportunity that this becomes so clear. Following the
success of construct referenced criteria and peer assessment, my colleagues
and I set about widening this process to all students within Key Stage
3. This involved explicitly teaching the criteria for success that was
needed at different attainment target levels, as well as giving students
time to self-assess pre-selected pieces of work that had previously assessed
by subject staff. Feedback from colleagues was positive about this process;
“They really enjoyed the opportunity to be the assessors themselves
for a change. Really lively discussion took place within groups and there
was a competitive element, as students tried to be the most accurate with
their predicted Levels,” Comment from MFL Head of Faculty (October
2002)
“One of the hardest aspects for them to consider was the “worthiness”
of the piece in terms of what level it was actually communicating. In
discussion with colleagues this again came up. We are asking students
to evaluate pieces in which it is hard to gauge the amount of errors
and the level of syntax disruption. These students were however coping
with this to a great extent, and were picking out the errors in terms
of syntax and spelling. Perhaps we do not give our students enough credit
at this level” (comment from teacher-researcher journal 08/11/2002)
This comment relates to the next stage of the process; relating the work
taking place within Key Stage 3 to that within Key Stage 4 in preparation
for written coursework. This presented itself with several problems, firstly
that the current Key Stage 4 students have not had the opportunity to
self-assess work, and secondly that they were often reliant on teacher
direction to make improvements. We were now asking many to change their
style of working after already having completing one or two written pieces.
It also raised the considerable problem that the examination dictates,
“feedback shall only be given by the official feedback form, no other
guidance shall be given” In consultation with colleagues, we decided
to insert a further stage into written coursework, allowing the students
to self-assess and peer-assess at the end of their rough draft. By giving
the students the opportunity to self-assess their work, we could not be
penalised for giving additional feedback. Allowing students who were comfortable
with the criteria for success to peer assess the students’ work in
the role of “teacher” we hoped would allow a continual improvement
of students’ understanding of the success criteria.
A draft form was compiled for this process (available as Appendix 4),
which led students more succinctly through the process of coursework.
For the first time, they were asked to consider the audience of their
piece of work. They were also asked to reflect on their own learning by
brainstorming keywords and phrases for the coursework topic, and to assess
their coursework related to the “pupil speak” criteria of which
each student was now in possession.
After one round of this type of self-assessment, I asked students in my
own classes to suggest improvements to the form, and also to give comments
on whether this form was really helping them to further their understanding
.
Bruce et al (2000:256) support the idea of listening to learn through
the following comments; “Teaching by listening showed how children
were able to engage more deeply in the process of mathematical thinking
when they were encouraged to articulate their own ideas and not just listen
to the teacher. Through this telling, the children often revealed aspects
of thinking about the teaching that could provide invaluable guidance
to the teacher” they also note “It is noteworthy that supportive
dialogue thus serves as a teaching approach, as a research tool, and as
an essential element for collaboration” (2000:248) Supportive dialogue
was not only considered useful, but essential to refining the research
taking place within MFL. Other similar practice related to self-evaluation
was taking place within the History Faculty at Key Stage 3, involving
giving students a booklet based on defining the unit targets both for
the unit itself and for the student within that unit . A common feature
between the MFL and History examples was the “student friendly”
attainment target levels . Other good practice was highlighted within
Science via the development of a “traffic-light” system, whereby
students prioritise their own learning needs by colour-coordination and
also by practice within the school’s English Faculty. Simon Riding,
Head of Faculty, states, “What influence have you had as a teacher
in moving a student forward? I feel that I ineffectively use the feedback
sheets for GCSE coursework…students never have the opportunity to
really learn from my summative comments” (Assessment paper for discussion,
September 2002, included as Appendix 5) The question which my colleague
considers here is at the heart of what I am striving to achieve within
MFL, and to relate this to my values both as a teacher-researcher and
as a linguist .
The management of the process was also an element of the research that
showed similarities between English and MFL. Within English, this process
has been in a series of stages, beginning with a discussion paper bought
up on the agenda at Faculty meetings and further discussion between colleagues
working towards modifications of the process. The beginning stage for
MFL came very much from the self, combined with recommendation of the
need for this process within the Faculty to take place following the Faculty
review. Involvement with colleagues has been through (similar to the English
example) further discussion at Faculty meetings, following a trial of
the process that we wished to collaboratively put into place.
Recommendations from colleagues have been central to the process of improvement
that has taken place, both internally and externally through the initial
involvement of the former MFL advisor for Dorset. In 2000, an initial
meeting took place to look at student friendly Attainment Target Levels
as a priority. By examining these with the feeder Middle Schools, it was
hoped that transition for students would become more unified in terms
of individuals understanding progression. This is similar to Everard &
Morris’ comments (1996:176) that “Corporate planning can be
adapted to education as to any other profession..providing a sound framework
for thought, and discussion at meetings with staff and others”
The delegation which has taken place within the MFL team can be defined
by Everard and Morris as “defining a meaningful goal”(1996:49),
here recognised by the feedback from the Faculty review. The effective
nature of implementing student self-evaluation at Key Stage 4 has been
through listing clearly defined objectives with Faculty meetings identified
in advance to review the process. During these meetings, the objectives
were re-defined in light of evidence from subject staff, yet the decision
on how to proceed was ultimately taken by the teacher-researcher who felt
passionately about implementing this change. “Commitment based on
the “my idea-it will work principle” becomes even stronger if
we delegate as much as possible of the decision-making to the implementers…there
is a review process, recognition of achievement automatically built into
the process” (Everard et al 1996:49) The process at Key Stage 3 however
still needed modification in terms of having clearly defined criteria
and objectives with a timetable. The Faculty wishes this to be a more
open-ended process, negotiated with students and the individual teacher.
This is in-line with the current Faculty focus on raising results at Key
Stage 4 due to underachievement by a significant majority of students
within coursework in the 2002 examinations. I would however argue though
that instilling this process of awareness in terms knowing what and how
to improve already at Key Stage 3 will allow success at Key Stage 4 to
be a follow-on process.
In looking into examples of good practice within other Faculties, and
taking the elements of these into our own work a “collegiate culture”
has been created, to the extent that colleagues were discussing and observing
other colleagues’ work, and working with a common vision, but one
which was directed towards a subject specialism. Fullan (2000:108) describes
this as “a common collegiate technical culture or analytic orientation”.
It was observed by several colleagues that we wished this process to become
one of professional sharing, whereby positive elements of individual’s/team’s
work is being shared, but not so much as there is a prescribed format
for us to follow-which we felt would ultimately sacrifice the creativity
of our work
It was at this stage that I proceeded to ask if teams of colleagues could
work together with a common vision, could this not be true for teacher
and pupil researchers in collaboration. Whilst interviewing Craig, Shane
and Natasha about their thoughts on this type of collaboration, Craig
replied “If students would be willing to get involved with the research,
I think that, if only a few wished to help, teachers and students would
need to have meetings to discuss their views and what they think should
appear” Here, Craig appears to be defining collegiality, but in a
different sense, whereby student and staff have equal ownership over the
process.
Defining objectives at review meetings, as recognised by both Everard
& Morris (1996) and McNiff et al (2000) above has here been recognised
by a student who has formally not taken part in such a process. Craig’s
level of insight here, appeared to myself to be at a level beyond his
experience. Craig goes on to comment “With the possibility of teachers
and students working as a group to produce the research it would raise
future opportunities of more sessions for higher and less able students”
Shane, another Year 10 student continues by asking “How can a better
link be established between pupils and teachers?” Ruddock et al (2000)
have pointed to the rich potential afforded by discovering about pupils’
perspectives of being learners, data that could be used to implement strategies
to enhance their efforts and attainment.
The statements that both Craig and Shane have made also point to the results
of research caries out by Whitehead into Educational Action Zones. She
comments, “Our research provides a rich source of evidence derived
from students’ experiences in a particular context of disadvantage
and allows us to learn what they value, what they want to accomplish and
be accomplished”(2002)
Methodology
As I defined a need to research the self-evaluation of students within
MFL, I began to plan for the methods and tools which I could use to help
show evidence of this process in action, and to inform the process as
it continued. During this planning stage, it could be noted that several
aspects of my methodology closely related to choices made by myself in
previous research. I proposed to evaluate the process of the research
by using several methods, all aimed at creating triangulation and validity
of the research.
The first method was to be via a journal created by myself as the participant-observer
in the research and by a sample group of participant students in the programme,
from which extracts are shown above. The journal served to highlight the
personal record of events and thought processes by these two sets of participant.
“Providing that accounts are authentic, it is argued, there is no
reason why they should not be used as scientific tools in explaining people’s
actions” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2001b: 294) .
My second method was to utilise both the research group at Westwood and
a group of Year 10 students involved in the process as “critical
friends” for my research . This was both on a group level, as well
as on an individual level. In asking these “critical friends”
to crosscheck my interpretation of the accounts, it was hoped that the
validity of the process would be increased.
A third method was to interview the participants of the research, which
divided into two categories. Firstly, asking a colleague from outside
the school to interview a sample of the students from the control group,
and secondly talking to colleagues within the MFL Faculty about their
thoughts related to the process. In choosing an outside “lay”
interviewer (namely a Middle School colleague) to conduct the research,
I was opening myself to the limitations and advantages of this process.
This colleague, not being involved with this process, was able to increase
the reliability of the interview answers, in that she had no personal
bias or previous knowledge about the research. The interview format took
the form of a group interview, with the interviewer reading out a “synopsis”
of the aims of the interview, before proceeding with a list of questions.
The interview was filmed by one of the student-participators, which I
felt would make the interview into an ethnographic study, looking at the
interview through literally, the eyes of the student . I also recognised
that the sampling technique that I used had its limitations. I chose to
interview using a “systematic sampling” system, in that I selected
subjects from the control group’s register, inviting every fourth
student to interview. Cohen and Manion (2001b:98) state that “the
research will need to consider the extent in which it is important that
the sample in fact recognises the whole population in question”.
If I had the opportunity to conduct the interview again, I would wish
to utilise a “stratified sampling” method, selecting students
after stratifying the group into layers of gender, attainment and amount
of involvement within the process.
Any sampling though, will already weaken the idea that the “all stakeholders”
give a viewpoint to the process. In discussion with Jack Whitehead (11/2002),
this issue was bought up. By only asking some students to give their viewpoint,
the balance of the viewpoint expressed may already be removed from that
of other stakeholders within the process. If conducting this research
again, I would aim to pass the comment on to students who have not been
involved in the discussions, so that they could annotate these in order
that they could be further modified to express a more inclusive viewpoint.
Ethics
Following discussion with Shane (a Year 10 student) that he had read some
of the previous work conducted by teacher-researchers at Westwood, the
research group felt that ethics of including student’s work, comments
and visual image needed to be addressed at a higher level. Upon reading
the research, Shane commented “I thought it was quite interesting
to read things like this from the teacher’s point of view. She was
talking about meetings that I had been to-I was amazed by how some of
her opinions were to mine” and similarly ”Perhaps it would be
really interesting to compare her journal to a pupil’s. I wonder
how similar they would be?” Already Shane was considering student
involvement as a useful and valid point of research, and I wished to involve
students as named participants of the research, by explaining the process
of involvement to them and by seeking parental consent as to individual’s
involvement. This appeared to go against the view that “The obligation
to protect the anonymity of research participants and to keep research
data confidential is all-inclusive” (Frankfort, Nachmias & Nachmias
1992: 61). However, the process which I wished to include of informed
consent “has been defined by Diener and Crandall (1978:57) as “the
procedures in which individuals choose whether to participate in an investigation
after being informed of facts that would be likely to affect their decisions”
In asking the students to be involved, I refer to the guidelines for
reasonable informed consent as stated by Cohen and Manion (2001b:51).
These state that participants should “expect an instruction to withdraw
consent and to discontinue participation in the project at any time without
prejudice to the participant”. This guideline raised the question
that if one of the students decided after submission of this research
material, to withdraw their consent, of whether I would then need to request
the research back in order to make the necessary adjustments. I hoped
however, that by using the system of access and acceptance, that I “could
establish my own ethical position with respect to my research” (Cohen
and Manion 2001b:53) I proceeded to seek the verbal permission of staff,
whose comments have been included within the research. In order to maintain
this position, I have submitted a copy of this research document to those
staff involved, so as to check that the statements included are acceptable
to them; stating that nil-returns would indicate acceptance of my claims.
I have also met with the student-researchers who were heavily committed
to the process, in order to check the validity of my claims .
Conclusions
This research, has bought together various good practice occurring within
the school related to students evaluating their own work and further improving
upon this. I would argue though that this model of professional sharing
is at the extent of what is possible, without stifling the creativity
occurring within individual Faculties. If a top-down decision as made
to make this process a uniform one, whilst making the student’s experience
a more succinct one, it would also curtail the process for which the original
work was intended. By including the students’ voice within the research,
this has allowed me insider knowledge into their perceptions of learning.
This inclusion has allowed the research to be tailored towards the needs
of the students, and has produced dialogue of an informative and insightful
nature between teacher and student. I would credit the use of students
as co researchers in any further research that I undertake with regards
to my own education practice.
Following comments both by students and colleagues about this process,
I can make recommendations about how the process should now proceed to
further strengthen the work already carried out within the Faculty:
- The Faculty concentrates upon the students’ experience at Key
Stage 3, building in lessons aimed at evaluation of written work (both
self- and peer-evaluation) into the existing Scheme of Work.
- Review meetings continue about the process, with experiences shared
amongst colleagues and recommendations made by the teacher-researcher.
- An evaluation sheet is produced for Key Stage 3 written work, linked
closely to the Key Stage 4 evaluation sheet. This will build in series
of stepping-stones, whereby students achieving all; the objectives for
one level will proceed to the next.
- The use of student-researchers is further developed within the Faculty,
setting up a student working party of interested students to work alongside
teachers on developing self-evaluation. Review meetings take place of
this process (asking students to attend part of the Faculty meetings
with parental consent) and asking students involved to keep a journal
of their thoughts on the continuing process.
I hope that by learning to work with students as equals within the research
process, I will never again find myself in the embarrassing situation
whereby students read research written about them, without having been
asked their viewpoint upon the process. This has been an incredible journey
of self.
References
Bruce, B. and Easley, N.(2000) Emerging communities of practise; collaboration
and communication in action research. Educational Action Research Volume
8, Number 2, 117-119, Oxfordshire: Carfax,
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standard
through classroom assessment London: King’s College School.
Brown, J. and Sime, J.D.(1981) A Methodology of Accounts. In M. Brenner
(ed.) Social Method and Social Life. 159-88, London: Academic Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2001b) Research Methods in Education.
5th ed. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
Collins, K. (2002) How have my values as an educator been influenced by
my role as A, G&T coordinator? Unpublished MA unit: University of
Bath.
Diener, R. and Crandall, R. (1978) Ethics in Social and Behavioural research.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Everard, K. & Morris, G. (1996) Effective School Mangement 3rd ed.
London: Paul Chapman.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1992) Research Methods in the
Social Sciences. London: Edward Arnold.
Fullan, M.G. (2000). The New Meaning of Educational Change. 8th ed. London:Continuum.
Leyden, S. (2002) Supporting the child of Exceptional ability at Home
and School 3rd ed. Oxford: NACE. Nottinghamshire County Council Publication
(2001) Able Pupils: Providing for able pupils and those with exceptional
talent
Rudduck, J., Berry, M, Brown, N. and Frost, D. (2000) “Schools learning
from schools” Research papers in Education 15(3), pp.259-274.
Whitehead, J McNiff, J. &Lomax, P. (2000) You and Your Action Research
Project. 5th ed. New York: Routledge.
Whitehead, J. (2002) Pupils: the forgotten partner in EAZ partnerships
Unpublished draft paper, University of the West of England.
|
