The Effect of Feedback from Pupil to Teacher on Assessment for Leaning and Visible Learning: An Ethnographic Case Study in a Community School in England and the Outcome in a State High School in Queensland, Australia
This study shows that there is positive regulatory effect of feedback from pupils to teachers on Assessment for Learning (AfL), classroom proactiveness, and on visible and progressive learning but not on behaviour. This research finding further articulates feedback from pupil to teacher as a paradigm shift from the classical paradigm of feedback from teacher to pupil. Here, the emphasis is geared towards pupils understanding of objectives built from previous knowledge. These are then feedback onto the teachers by the pupils in the form of discrete loops of cues and questions, where they are with their learning. This therefore enables them to move to the next level of understanding, and thus acquired independence, which in turn is reflected by their success in both formative and summative assessments. This study therefore shows that when feedback from pupil to teacher is used in combination with teacher to pupil feedback, AfL is ameliorated and hence, visible and accelerated learning occurs in a gender, nor subject non-dependent manner. 1. Introduction In many schools in England and Australia, pupils who provide feedback to teachers, for instance, by asking relevant questions during lessons and activities, are more proactive in class and learn and progress faster than those who do not provide feedback to teachers [1–4]. Moreover, pupils who effortlessly move to the next or higher attainment levels in these schools, do so frequently when there is a place for a dynamic feedback process—more so from the pupils to the teachers than from the teachers to the pupils [5]. Furthermore, it has been evidenced that such dynamic feedback process from pupils to teachers not only motivates pupils, but also creates a milieu where teaching and learning becomes visible, and progressive learning becomes frequent [6, 7]. Nonetheless, the phenomenon why this is so is still poorly understood. As a consequence, therefore, there are no effective tools, if any, to quantify and/or measure such dynamic feedback process from pupil to teacher [8, 9]. It is imperative therefore to understand this phenomenon and its association with progressive learning. This study therefore aims not only to show how feedback from “pupil to teacher” ameliorates Assessment for Learning (AfL) and hence visible and progressive learning, but also to develop a tool to measure such dynamic feedback process. Such tool, not least may address pupil’s ability to judge and condescend, when and were in their personal learning process is the right juncture and junction to provide cues via feedback to teachers.
References
[1]
H. M. G. Watt, “Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in mathematics: a study with secondary mathematics teachers in Sydney, Australia,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 21–44, 2005.
[2]
J. Biggs, “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment,” Higher Education, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 347–364, 1996.
[3]
National Strategies AFL, 2008, http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/nationalstrategies/assessment/assessmentforlearnin gafl.
[4]
“National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM),” 2008, http://www.ncetm.org.uk.
[5]
“Office for standards in Education (Ofsted) Assessment for learning: the impact of National Strategy support,” 2008, http://www.ofted.gov.uk.
[6]
D. R. Sadler, “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems,” Instructional Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 119–144, 1989.
[7]
D. L. Meyer, “The poverty of constructivism,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 332–341, 2009.
[8]
J. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge, Oxon, Md, USA, 2009.
D. Porcaro, “Applying constructivism in instructivist learning cultures,” Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, vol. 5, pp. 39–54, 2011.
[14]
“Department for Education and Skills (DfES),” 2008, http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/secondary.
[15]
J. Piaget, “The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge. Qualification and Curriculum Authority,” 1950, http://www.qca.org.uk/curriculum.
[16]
R. DeVries, Developing Constructivist Early Childhood Curriculum: Practical Principles and Activities, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, USA, 2002.
“Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) Getting with Grip with APP,” 2009, http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/publications.
[20]
National Strategies AFL, 2008, “The associated reference on the reference list remains the same,” http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/nationalstrategies/assessment/assessmentforlearningafl.
[21]
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2012, http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum.
[22]
J. Piaget, Logique Et Connaissance Scientifique, Encyclopédie de La Pléiade, 1967.
[23]
The Cockcroft Report, “Mathematics counts,” Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools Under the Chairmanship of Dr WH Cockcroft, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, UK, 1982.
[24]
P. Bourdieu and L. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1992.
L. Schatzman and A. Strauss, Field Research: Strategies for a Natural Sociology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1973.
[27]
“Department for Education and Skills (DfES),” 2013, http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/secondary/b00199003/mathematics/ks3/attainment/processes.
[28]
G. Claxton, “Mathematics and the mind gym: hoe subject teaching develops a learning mentally,” For the Learning of Mathematics, vol. 24, pp. 27–30, 2004.