Once upon a time, a significant issue in the teaching profession was access to high-quality professional development. This remains an issue for many teachers when it comes to presentations, seminars or workshops - not all teachers have equal access to these. However, with books, blogs and podcasts, the issue now isn’t so much one of access - teachers and school leaders today are almost spoilt for choice - it’s finding the time.
Like many before me, I’ve decided to tackle this problem this year by starting to use my daily commute for professional development. Whereas in the past I would have had music or news on during the 80-minute round trip, this term I’ve started listening to education podcasts. With no disrespect to Zoe Ball or Evan Davis, I’m finding this a much more productive use of my time.
My CPD on assessment
At the time of writing, I’m working my way through the back catalogue of Mind The Gap podcasts, hosted by Tom Sherrington and Emma Turner. I highly recommend these to teachers and school leaders alike.
One of my favourite episodes so far is “Designing Teaching and Understanding Learners with Dylan Wiliam”. To be honest, I could sit and listen to Wiliam all day - he has a mesmerising voice that oozes wisdom. Sherrington asks him about the similarities and differences between “assessment for learning”, ‘“formative assessment” and “responsive teaching”. His response is enlightening.
Assessment for learning is a term that can be applied to any assessment, regardless of whether it is used formatively or summatively. It’s best to think of it as broad and overarching. If an assessment improves learning, it is assessment for learning. Daily reviews, in-lesson questioning, homework and end-of-topic tests can all be examples of “assessment for learning”, depending on their design and execution.
Formative assessment is different; it is a subset of assessment for learning. Formative assessments are used to inform or adapt teaching, or the actions of students, in a specific way, depending on what the teacher or students find out from the assessment. The term “responsive teaching” relates to the teacher aspect of this. Accordingly, I would suggest that there could be value in the term “responsive study” as one that relates to the student aspect of formative assessment.
Sherrington points out in the podcast that he doesn’t think the relationship between assessment for learning, formative assessment and responsive teaching is particularly well understood in the teaching profession. I am sure he is right. In my experience, a common mistake of teachers and school leaders is to use the terms “assessment for learning” and “formative assessment” interchangeably. But as we have already seen, summative assessments, such as end-of-topic and end-of-course tests, can be examples of assessment for learning: they motivate students to study - and, therefore, to learn - and they move learning forward, albeit in a different way to formative assessment.
Wiliam has previously argued that the terms “formative” and “summative” should be thought of as relating to how we use assessments, rather than to the nature of the assessments themselves. In principle, any assessment can be used formatively or summatively, it’s just that some lend themselves better and more easily to one use than the other.
As a rule of thumb, the more specific the assessment, the more useful it is formatively. The opposite is also true: if you’re looking to assess summatively (to find out how much students know about something), it is better to test a broader domain of knowledge.
SQA exams
All of this brings us to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) exams. Drawing on your understanding of what we’ve just discussed, take a moment to consider the following questions:
- Are SQA exams “assessment for learning”? Why?
- Are SQA exams “summative assessment”? Why?
- Are SQA exams “formative assessment”? Why?
The answer to Question 1 is “yes”: SQA exams are an example of “assessment for learning” (or certainly can be). Most students are motivated to study - and therefore to learn - because they know they will sit an exam and they want to do well. You can argue the rights and wrongs of this, but, regardless, this is assessment for learning.
Question 2 is arguably easiest. Because SQA exams sum up the extent to which a student knows or is able to do something, they are clearly examples of summative assessment: the totality of what they know or can do is summarised and shared as a grade.
The answer to Question 3 is “no”: SQA exams are not an example of formative assessment because it is very difficult for teachers to be able to adapt their teaching in the light of how students performed. All that teachers have access to is a grade or “component marks” (scores in particular parts of the exam or associated coursework). They have no access to students’ papers and so have no means of knowing which questions most students did well with, and which they didn’t. This is the way it has always been.
A better future?
However, just because it has always been so, it doesn’t mean it should stay this way. At the time of a national conversation on the future of assessment, through the Hayward review, perhaps it is time to consider whether schools should be given access to marked exam papers. The main benefit would be that teachers can learn from these. Based on what they find out, they can adapt their teaching. Exams would become formative, and that can only be a good thing.
A secondary benefit would relate to appeals. Schools would no longer need to guess if a paper has been marked accurately and take a punt where they have a hunch that it hasn’t (something that happens a lot more often than certain bodies are prepared to admit, but perhaps that’s a for different article).
So, looking to the future, let’s get formative - doing so will make a “happily ever after” much more likely for everyone.
Bruce Robertson is rector (headteacher) of Berwickshire High School in the Scottish Borders, and author of The Teaching Delusion trilogy and Power Up Your Pedagogy: the illustrated handbook of teaching
