Recommended Reading
Assessment Study – Marking and Feedback
Abstract
Teachers are required to mark students’ written work. Marking allows teachers to appreciate what has been understood, what strengths and weaknesses exist; and on occasion direct teaching for future learning. Marking is therefore a form of assessment. Marking styles vary, depending on school, teacher, subject and activity. Occasionally it may be sufficient to use a simple form such as the conventional ‘ticks and crosses’ or just score; whilst on other occasions a written comment might be more appropriate, especially if such comments or ‘feedback’ can improve performance in future and help student learning. It at this level of marking, that we can begin to consider marking as a form of ‘Assessment for Learning’ (AfL); an act which provides evidence for finding out where students are in their learning.
The UK National Strategy; the government initiative for education since 2004/5, introduced guidelines for teachers in order to develop their AfL practice in the classroom. Suggesting there is a greater appreciation for AfL as a means of increasing the effectiveness of teaching and learning. This assignment will explore the ways in which teachers can assess on a regular basis students’ written work and the usefulness of the feedback that teachers provide particularly for the ‘learning of science’.
What is AfL?
Assessment for learning (AfL) or formative assessment; includes any form of assessment which essentially promotes learning. Consult the relevant literature and more comprehensive definitions can be found; which include such aspects as student engagement, ‘modification of learning pathway’ and ‘teacher-student’ collaboration. In terms of the ‘learning of science’, the ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education states that assessment for learning … ‘aims to enable pupils to build scientific understanding through direct interaction with, and thinking about, materials, events and phenomena in their environment’ (chapter 22, page 173-174). Such comments suggest that although AfL is an integral part of teaching across all subject fields; it is of particular importance in science education, particularly when considering scientific enquiry (Sc1).
When considering AfL, it is common to highlight how it differs to ‘assessment of learning’ (AoL) or summative assessment. AoL describes assessment which measures achievement at a particular time. The ‘ASE Guide’ (page177) states that … ‘while formative assessment is an ongoing part of teaching, AoL does not guide teaching and provides information after the event …’ This is not to suggest that AoL is not useful; it plays an integral role in providing information for schools, teachers and students concerning achievement, but in terms of the learning procedure it is not informative.
What Strategies are used to Implemented AfL?
In the late nineties Black and William, conducted a series of studies which focussed on classroom assessment, and concluded that forms of formative assessment can have substantial gains in learning (Cowie. pp137. 2005). Since then there has been little evidence to suggest otherwise and as mention before the UK Governments’ Secondary Strategy scheme heavily promotes the use of AfL. Despite this though several recent studies suggest that the use of AfL in lessons, particularly in science, is limited (Gioka. pp 342. 2006). Part of the reason for this is suggested to be the result of inadequate information existing for the implementation AfL in the classroom.
The ASE Guide suggested that teachers often fail to release that AfL … ‘is not something added to teaching, but is integral to it…’ When a topic is being taught to a class of students, the teacher will present information to the class and then will use some form of assessment task in order to find out what has been and has not been understood by the students. This form of assessment can serve as a means of reinforcing the information initially presented to the class or after completion (of the assessment task); can correct misunderstood information if the teacher (or task) can provide effective ‘feedback’. Feedback is an integral part of AfL, and has been appreciated since studies performed in the late eighties (Ruth Butler 1987) illustrated that ‘effective feedback’ (or suitable marking style); usually in the form of relevant comments, was highly beneficial for student learning and involvement in learning.
This is another highly publicised aspect of AfL; the involvement of students in the learning process. Hargreaves 2005 (pp214), suggests that AfL is … ‘the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for the use by learners … to decide where the learners are in their learning … ‘ (quote originally taken from definition present by the Assessment Reform Group 2002). This suggests that AfL should be specifically directed towards the promotion of student involvement in own learning and the need to assess themselves in order to improve. This therefore has to be considered when implementing AfL.
A basic example of the implementation of AfL would normally include the initial setting of a learning goal (usually by the teacher). The teacher will then provide a task which is aimed to achieve this goal. The learner will hopefully begin to reach some of the requirements of the learning goal whilst completing the task. Once this task is complete and marked; evidence will be obtained which will inform the teacher (and learner) where the learner is in reference to achieving the learning goal. The teacher can then provide adjustment to the teaching pathway (i.e. the activities/tasks presented to the class) in order to promote the students’ achievement of the original learning goal. The learning process can be maximised if the students have some appreciation of the learning pathway and eventually goal. If so, they can direct there own learning through means of self-assessment. The feedback implemented by the teacher has the potential to enhance the learning experience and strength teacher-student relationship. There is also some evidence to suggest that student self-esteem and ‘feelings’ towards learning can be heavily influenced by the style of feedback adopted.
This assignment focuses on the marking style for written pieces of work, as teacher feedback emerges to be an indispensable aspect of implementing effective AfL.
Research aspect of Assignment
During serial practice one, I took on the duties of several classes, including the setting and marking of written assignments. Work was marked in accordance with the schools marking style (described in next section). In order to explore how my marking and feedback could have an effect on students’ learning of science, I set two similar assignments (scientific essay questions) for my Year 13 A2 Biology class and then marked each of the essays in a different marking style. For the first essay (labelled assignment A) I marked with written comments about science as the only feedback (no crosses), and a final written comment which gave an overall impression on performance and what aspects to concentrate on next time. The second assignment (B) was similar in nature, but when marked I used ticks, crosses and a mark out of ten. Students were then given back both assignments in order to consider; their work, the teacher feedback and the usefulness in marking style for the ‘learning of science’. Students were then asked to complete a questionnaire (see appendix), in response to their feelings/preference towards each marking style. Two pupils were selected randomly for a follow up interview outside lesson; in order strengthen any comments raised in the questionnaire.
Analysis of the Marking Style prior to Research
The style in which the students’ written work was marked before the research project began is a common form used in many secondary schools. It involves a separate grade for attainment (performance) and effort. Attainment is determined through a score of A to E; with A being the top grade available. There is then a grade for the amount of effort the teacher considers the student has put into the task. This is a score between 1 and 5, with 1 being ‘excellent effort’ and 5 being ‘poor’. Teachers are supposed to use this marking style and include some form of ‘meaningful’ comment as feedback; in accordance with the National Strategy recommendations; however, this is not always the case and often just the mark is written on students written assignments. This marking style is consistently used across key stage 3, key stage 4 and even into post 16. Hence, the majority of students are extremely familiar with the marking style and understanding when they have performed well or not so well in a task.
The advantage of using a system such as this is that when it comes to sharing student information, a record exists which can be interpreted by all teachers. It is also relatively time effective for the typical teacher; who has a lot of other commitments also to consider. In terms of student usefulness though, the marking style may not be considered as effective, as it offers only a limited opportunity to provide constructive feedback. Teachers were also encouraged to mark assignments in red ball point pen.
Research Findings – What did the students think?
All students within the group participated in a questionnaire following the completion of essay activities A and B. The results from the questionnaires were collaborated and presented in graphical form.
Out of the nine students in the group, seven preferred the ‘marking style A’, which was the style that included comments, rather than ‘crosses’. The reasons for why the students preferred the more comprehensive feedback varied but in general it appeared that this form of feedback placed more significance on the task. For example several students felt that the feedback presented ‘tips and suggestions’ that would improve future work. Others felt that marking style A enabled them to locate areas of difficult or future work, essentially presenting more information to the student that might otherwise not have been offered with another marking style.
Students who stated that they preferred marking style B (ticks and crosses), seemed to prefer this form of feedback because it was ‘quicker’ to assess how well they had done in a task. It also allowed students to compare results/grades against each other, a form of peer-assessment. It was interesting to see that from the prospective of the teacher, the students who favoured this form of feedback seemed to be confident individuals and male. Obviously, the sample group was limited so we cannot confirm this but only suggest that perhaps gender has some influence. Not one of the female candidates in the group selected style B as their preferred marking style.
During the questionnaire, students were asked which form of feedback helped with their ‘learning of science’. The more comprehensive marking style A was selected with a 90% majority over marking style B; in terms of the learning of science. This is not perhaps surprising as the approach of style A was to be non-judgemental, but question scientific thought. The non-judgemental aspect of A was highlighted by some students, in a series of questions which explored how each marking style made the students feel about their work. It was interesting to see that far more of the students selected that they were pleased or fairly happy with their work when it was marked in style A rather than B. Most felt nothing or were disappointed when there work was marked in style B. These findings maybe limited though, as performance across the two tasks; despite being extremely similar, was not consistent for all students. This may have given an unfair advantage to marking style A.
Finally, the questionnaire commenced with a question about the limitations of the students preferred style. It was interesting to observe that several issues were commonly risen across the group. Most students who preferred A, commented on the teacher handwriting and difficulties in assessing how well they had done, as disadvantages to the feedback style. The few, who choose B, had different issues for example the lack of information for future work was a highlighted as a disadvantage for this form of feedback. Such findings illustrate that no one marking style will suit all, for every occasion.
The interviews occurred after the questionnaires had been completed, during a lunchtime period. They were performed in accordance to the ethical guidelines recommended for educational research; which uphold anonymity and confidentiality of the interviewees’.
The participating students were extremely willing, as by this stage of the research they were extremely keen to have their views expressed. Copies of the final interview manuscripts can be found in the appendix.
The majority of the interview questions were focussed around the questionnaire, so a lot of the opinions expressed directly correlate to what has already been mentioned. However, question two of the interview asked the students how their preferred marking style (which incidentally were both A), helped with their scientific learning. The comments used during the feedback seemed to be the greatest influence. One interviewee commented that it ‘… helps you question what you have done, it makes you think’. As we become increasingly concerned with ‘scientific enquiry’, this is surely something to consider.
The non-judgemental aspect of the feedback was also commented on, ‘… well it helps me learn when I don’t feel judged…’ It would appear that some students feel that the act of failing is fairly traumatic and hence this concern can sometimes present itself as a learning barrier in itself. We must remember that even as science teachers we have a role in the students’ development of social skills and self-esteem, as well as their scientific learning.
The final question of the interview was in reference to how they felt teachers should mark their work in general. Surprisingly one of the interviewees’ did not think it was appropriate for teachers to mark written tasks in the preferred style on every occasion. Both of the students could appreciate that there was a considerable time difference between the two marking styles. In general it would appear that the students interviewed would like some of the work they completed to be marked in the preferred manner, because of the positives it has on their learning, but appreciated that teachers’ time is limited.
Thoughts about marking; purpose for teacher and students
Before I stared this assignment I appreciated that marking was a requirement of teaching, but I did not truly appreciate the significance of the feedback and had made little association to AfL and student learning. As I have progressed with my research I have since began to grasp the potential offered by appropriate marking style and its impact on students. It must be noted that marking written tasks is only one form of AfL, never-the-less, the appropriate literature and my findings reflect its significance. Studies similar in nature to mine have been performed frequently since the mid-1980s. As a whole, the education system has become more concerned to the ‘goings on’ of the classroom (considered to be the ‘black box’ of education (Inside the Black Box, Black. 2001)), especially the relationship and communication between teacher and student.
The significance of a ‘good’ student-teacher relationship has only recently begun to be appreciated. Teachers have more often than not illustrated more concerned with lesson or content deliverance, than how they communicate with students. However, recent studies have shown that if students have little communication with or do not like teachers, they are far less receptive to learning, despite its form of deliverance. Cowie 2005 (pp. 137) performed a study with students in New Zealand, which explored the nature of peer and teacher relationships on learning. The findings of the study suggested that students who have a lack of trust and respect for a teacher, were far less likely to disclose there own ideas, an obvious learning barrier for a subject such as science.
The recent publicity surrounding this topic has allowed many teaching processionals to redefine or at least question their understanding of AfL. Often this takes the form of the inclusion of the student. Hargreaves 2005 (pp. 214) suggests that teachers often when defining AfL, present a definition which includes only teacher role, in particular when it comes to who sets the learning targets. It is recommended that the conceptions of teachers and other educational professionals in terms of AfL must be challenged in order to have an impact on the classroom and the student learning processes. There is little denying that increased student involvement in assessment will be a positive for learning.
The findings of study and most of the literature would suggest that feedback is extremely important, and that a form that includes a non-judgemental comment that aids future thought is the most beneficial for study learning. There is considerable evidence to agree with this, however, Smith 2005 (pp. 21) illustrates through a study carried out over a period of year on a large sample of year 7 students, that in terms of attainment the inclusion of a grades as well as comments was far more beneficial then just comments alone. Such studies highlight the effectiveness of peer and self assessment that are introduced when grades are inclusive with feedback. It is understandable that some students will prefer to be without the pressure and stress often associated with grades, but for the more competitive, grades would seem to be beneficial. Due to the time constraints and the style of my research I was unable to explore how learning was affected by feedback style. This is no evidence to suggest that although students’ may prefer a particularly marking style that it will in itself improve learning.
Critical look at methods of data collection
As part of my preparation for the research aspect of this assignment, I consulted the relevant literature about the ethical requirements necessary in educational research. I obtained permission from my subject mentor, who checked that my research followed these guidelines; preserving the individual’s anonymity and confidentiality of responses, especially during the pupil interviews. At the beginning of each interview, which was restricted to 20 minutes in length; a five minute briefing period was held which ensured that essential information such as; the purpose of the interview, the use of the data following the interview and reasons for why they were selected, was made known to the participants.
I decided against the tape recording of interviews. The use of mechanical tools such as a tape recorder may be intrusive, making the interviewee uncomfortable or influencing their responses to questions. (Wellington. 2000. pp 85). There is also more to consider when recording interviews in this manner in accordance to upholding the individuals anonymity and confidently. The benefits of tape recording interviews; is that little information is lost and analysis of responses can be repeated on several occasions before a written documentation is made. Despite attempting to record an accurate representation of the interview while note taking, it is inevitable that I was unable to record everything and prevent myself from having an influence sub-consciously on recorded responses. I tired to minimise these errors by having the interviewees’ check the manuscript after it was written up, in order to ensure it formed a suitable representation of what was said during the interview.
I faced a considerable dilemma when choosing an appropriate class for the research element.
As already mentioned I taught a variety of classes in my serial practice, the majority were key stage 3 (KS3) groups. In order to present data that is a good representation of what students’ think, it would be sensible to use the largest sample size possible. However, I was apprehensive to use a KS3 class as I felt their responses may be limited and the act of introducing a new teacher feedback style as well as the extra tasks associated would be extremely intrusive and cause more problems to classes that were already hampered by several classroom management issues. I therefore choose to use my A2 biology, which I taught for a two hour period each week. As it turned out I think this was a good decision as the act of participation seemed to be beneficial for student as well as teacher. Also the responses, especially during the interviews, were extremely comprehensive and of a standard not possible from students younger than post 16. The concern with using this group though was that it was a small and that this would limit the effectiveness of the data obtained from the questionnaire. Although some general patterns could be identified, few conclusive conclusions could be made due to the undersized sample size.
This assignment has confirmed that the style of feedback for written pieces of work does has an effect on students; in terms of how they feel about work, there relationship with the teacher, and their progression through a topic. I could even speculate that this is directly linked to ‘learning’, but in order to ‘test’ this suggestion would be difficult without the use of two identical teaching groups (if not clones), or a massive sample group. In an ideal situation and given the opportunity to repeat a form a research similar to this assignment I would use a much larger sample group. Never-the-less, performing this project and analysing its findings has been very influential on my personal opinions of teacher feedback and its place in AfL.
Adam Goold (2008)
References
ASE Guide to Secondary Education (2006),(Edited by Valerie Wood-Robinson), The Association for Science Education.
Black P. & William D. (2001- BERA short final draft) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment King’s College London School of Education.
Cowie B. (2005) Pupil commentary on assessment for learning. The Curriculum Journal Vol. 16, No. 2, pp137-151.
Gioka O. (2005) Assessment for learning in physics investigations: Assessment criteria, questions and feedback in marking. Physics Education Vol. 41, No. 4, pp341-346.
Hargreaves E. (2005) Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education Vol. 35, No. 2, pp213-214.-
Smith E. & Gorard S. (2005) ‘They don’t give us our marks’: The Role of formative feedback in student progess. Assessment in Education Vol. 12, No. 1, pp21-38.
Wellington J (2000) Educational Research: contemporary issues and practical approaches, London: Continuum. (Chapter 5; Interviewing)
