The following is a discussion of the intersection between the concept of a Layered Curriculum ™ classroom and the goals outlined in a program of formative assessment. This author assumes that the reader has more than a passing acquaintance with the concept of Layered Curriculum™.
In 1998, British professors Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam[1], performed a study in which they quantified assessment methods used in classrooms. In their survey of methods used to assess learning, their quest was to locate those evaluation methods which had proved most successful in producing the desired result: that being not a regurgitation of facts, not a record of high marks, but instead, actual student learning and comprehension at the highest levels. Black and William defined assessment as "to include all activities that teachers and students undertake to get information that can be used diagnostically to alter teaching and learning" (Boston,2002).
The term "formative assessment" may prompt some associations in the reader. Prior to Black and Wiliam, terms such as "authentic assessment" (Wiggins, 1989) and "performance assessment" (Sweet,1993) were used to describe assessment methods that were based in the real world, or that demanded more of the learner. However, these terms are also closely linked to the idea of alternative assessment , which is primarily used in relation to testing, in particular to high stakes, state-mandated testing. The term formative assessment is far more global and would incorporate all of these concepts; the concept itself is a modern version of what has gone before, so we will refer to what is most recent. Furthermore, even if a teacher were to employ alternative assessment/performance assessment, were that determination to take place at the conclusion of a learning unit, then those evaluations would still be defined as summative as they would be lacking in the component of instantaneous feedback required for an assessment to be judged formative. (See Table 1).
Table 1
|
Summative Assessment |
Formative
Assessment |
|
rote
practices |
flexible practices |
|
takes
place after a period of learning and makes a judgment whether it has
occurred- if not, it is "too late" |
is diagnostic and
prescriptive, provides feedback to teachers and students throughout
instruction |
|
teachers
can only adjust lessons for successive classes, not the one that was tested |
teachers can make
adjustments throughout the process |
|
"all or nothing"
tests, cumulative essays |
variety of methods used to
assess learning |
|
student lack of control
over methods of evaluation means that many will not succeed |
constant feedback assumes
that every student can and will succeed |
|
focus on memorizing facts
and information |
focus on learning and
understanding |
|
promotes norm based ranking
of students, pits students against each other |
promotes students' desire
to learn, cooperative activities[2] |
|
ignores student role in
assessment |
incorporates peer assessment
and student role, self-assessment and metacognitive practices |
|
students focus on getting
the right answer |
student/teacher interaction
mediates cues, strategies, and focuses on process |
|
students attribute poor
performance to lack of ability, may disengage |
poor performance equates to
lack of effort |
|
feedback is global |
feedback needs to be
differentiated to the individual student |
The preceding table sums up the relationship between formative and summative assessment in the most pristine, ideal sense. Note how all of the items in the formative assessment column echo the concepts embedded in a Layered Curriculum™ approach; in particular, the emphasis on student individuality and the ongoing dialogue between teacher and student. Yet Layered Curriculum goes even further along this continuum by allowing the student to direct the path of their own learning.
Far from a self-directed, empowering approach, the assessment that takes place in most classrooms today would be classified as summative assessment. Such methods would include rote activities, multiple choice tests, concentration on recall of specific details, testing which is dependent upon recall of facts and information rather than understanding[3], and evaluations which comprehensively occur at the conclusion of a unit of learning. These methods of evaluating student progress tend to lean towards a norm- based approach in which students are ranked and compared against each other, as opposed to being motivated and spurred on by their own learning.
In the Layered Curriculum classroom, teacher and student are in constant, close communication. Using the oral defense method, teachers prompt students to focus on what they are learning, to probe their knowledge for further understanding. The fact that this interaction takes place one on one, teacher to student, cannot be overlooked insofar as its more meaningful import to the student. The teacher who employs oral defense not only fosters a personal and mentoring relationship with particular students, but also each student receives a "mini tutoring" session that targets their own specific understanding. With the exception of an ably served special education student, such specificity and personal relationships are absent in a traditional classroom, which would emphasize showmanship of the few at the expense of many less able or extroverted speakers.
Several studies have shown that students who understand the learning objective and assessment standards (Fontana & Fernandes, 1994; Frederikson & White, 1997) will show greater improvement. Layered Curriculum not only makes assessment explicit to the student, but also rests far more control and responsibility upon the student, who is empowered to guide their own learning process. True, the onus is on the teacher to design coherent units and make learning goals and objectives explicit to students. Yet, the student of a Layered Curriculum classroom not only may plan their own learning route to a desired objective, but also may choose the method by which they would most easily assimilate the material, or those methods which are most attractive to them.
The use of rubrics for various video, audio, or written work products is endorsed by the methods of formative assessment and is a Layered Curriculum classroom staple. However, as employed by Layered Curriculum method, the use of rubrics further objectifies performance standards while emphasizing mastery, and allows the student increased mediation over their grade. If a project is submitted that falls short of the standards outlined in a rubric, the student may often have enough feedback and time in order to resubmit the product and improve their grade. Yes, the teacher gives up the ability to strike down student hopes with a swift pen and a dismissive mark. Yes, the student gains mastery as they labor to perfect their work products to meet a clearly defined standard. What a far cry from the traditional method, where a teacher despairs of ever getting students to perform re-writes and editing of previously submitted material. For that student, the effort is "not worth it" because he or she has already missed the desired objective- hitting a high mark on the first try. That the objective might be contained in the process does not occur to the student encased in such a system, as learning is de-emphasized in favor of summative evaluations.
The concept of formative assessment, embedded as it is within the precepts of a Layered Curriculum classroom, may not seem to offer much enlightenment to the Layered Curriculum (LC) teacher. One aspect of formative assessment theory that provides further avenues for exploration is the idea that assessment is a social process that takes place in a social setting (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The Layered Curriculum teacher may not consider themselves to be a relationship builder, nor a mediator of meaning. Yet, by performing the teaching role in such a personalized manner, the LC teacher enables students to connect the warmth of personality with learning and so enhances the meaning of the experience for student and teacher alike. Removed from the dictatorial position at the front of the classroom, the teacher is freed to become a mediator of learning, and the student is emboldened to develop a caring relationship with their teacher. As such, the richness of the learning exploration is magnified. It is a much-ignored tenet of the profession that students best recall those teachers whom they had the closest, most meaningful relationship with. Frequently, such associations bleed over into the student developing an affinity for the entire subject as well. What more could a teacher ask for than a student who develops a continuing interest in a given subject area?
In closing, one must conclude that though the goals of formative assessment are indeed practiced in the Layered Curriculum classroom, the methods of Layered Curriculum itself supercede the goals of formative assessment. Where formative assessment seeks to make assessment meaningful and provide feedback to improve teaching, Layered Curriculum targets the entire learning process (at all levels, see Bloom) as well as accountability; in the process LC provides meaningful feedback and formative assessment. Indeed, Layered Curriculum goes further by wresting the entrenched power of choice from the teacher and placing it in the hands of the student, giving the student power over how they are assessed, and over what material.
WORKS
CITED
Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1): 7-74.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2): 139-148. (Available online: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm.)
Bloom's Taxonomy. Web page. Accessed online October 10, 2004. http://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm
Boston,C. The concept of formative assessment. (2002). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation College Park MD. ED470206. Accessed online October 10, 2004. http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed470206.html
Boston, C. Alternative assessment. Accessed online October 10, 2004. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~wjh/520-alt.ass1.html
Fontana, D., and Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64 (3): 407-417.
Frederiksen, J.R., and White, B.J. (1997). Reflective assessment of students' research within an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Sweet, D. "Performance Assessment" 1993. Office of Education Research Consumer Guide. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/perfasse.html
Wiggins, G. (1989) "A True Test: Toward More Authentic
and Equitable Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 9 (May). http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed328611.html
http://www.thelighthouseforeducation.co.uk/assessment/assessmentcycle.htm
[1] Black,P. , William, D (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Retrieved October 10, 2004 from ERIC.
[2] Sutton,R. Assessment and Classroom Learning, key points extracted. Accessed online October 10, 2004
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources//resources/classroom_learning.html
[3] Black,P.,Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education 5(1). Retrieved October 10, 2004 from ERIC. http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed470206.html