Content area
Full text
The widely held idea that you should check what students learn in each class to inform your teaching is fundamentally flawed
If, as research suggests, learning is invisible at the point of teaching, then Dylan Wiliam has a problem. Or rather, his big idea, which has infiltrated nearly every school in the UK, has a problem. Formative assessment seemingly cannot work.
According to Wiliam, emeritus professor of educational assessment at the University of London's Institute of Education, we should "use evidence about learning to adapt teaching and learning to meet student needs". This depends on a belief that you can assess what pupils have learned in an individual lesson and adjust future teaching based on this assessment.
However, there's no meaningful way to assess what pupils have learned during the lesson in which they are supposed to be learning it.
As academics such as Robert Bjork and Nicholas Soderstrom (from the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles) have demonstrated, you can see only performance, not learning (bit.ly/SoderstromBjork).
If we measure performance, we can infer what might have been learned. But such inferences are highly problematic for two reasons. First, performance in the classroom is to a large extent dependent on the cues and stimuli provided by the teacher. Second, it is a very poor indicator of how well pupils might retain or transfer new concepts.
So where does this leave formative assessment? Let's take a look at the "five key strategies" Wiliam presents as the bedrock of embedded formative assessment, as well as what changes might be needed.
Learning intentions and success criteria
First comes "clarifying, sharing and understanding learning intentions and success criteria". The basic premise of letting kids know what they're supposed to be learning is fine. But I do have a bone to pick with success...