New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 45, No.

1, 2010 3
Student Participation in Formative
Assessment for NCEA
Peter Rawlins
Massey University
Abstract
This article reports on some of the findings of a study undertaken to examine students and
teachers perceptions of existing in-class formative assessment practices used as part of the
high-stakes exit qualification for New Zealand secondary schools. The study highlights a
disparity between teachers and students feedback preferences. The teachers saw oral feedback
as an effective and efficient strategy arguing that students do not read written feedback. In
contrast, the students reported that they do read and use written feedback, preferring to
engage with this feedback through peer-oriented interactions. This article argues that this
disparity is a result of teachers and students independently developing perceptions of effective
feedback practices through a lack of discourse on assessment practices. It further argues that
the collective development of, and engagement with, formative assessment practices has the
potential to enhance both individual and collective learning within the normal classroom
setting.
Keywords: Formative assessment, NCEA, students perspectives, sociocultural theory.
Introduction
Over the last ten years, the New Zealand compulsory school sector has seen a
number of significant changes as to how assessment is conceptualised and used to
influence and report on students learning. For example: the introduction of the
National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), the development of the
Assess to Learn (AtoL) professional development programme and Assessment Tools
for Teaching and Learning (asTTle) projects, and the diagnostic interview as part of
the Numeracy Development Project. More recently, the introduction of literacy and
numeracy standards, and uncertainty about how these will be assessed, has
highlighted the debate about the effect of assessment systems on teachers classroom
practices and students learning (see for example Absolum et al., 2009; The New
Zealand Assessment Academy, 2009).
This increasing interest in the interaction between assessment and learning is
coupled with the hope that improvements in assessment practices will make a strong
contribution to improvements in learning (Black, 2001). However, there is frequently
a tension between summative and formative assessment practices. While research
evidence suggests that effective use of formative assessment supports and promotes
learning, institutional demands often result in the summative role taking precedence,
resulting in limited use of formative assessment practices (Black & Wiliam, 1998;
Carr, McGee, Jones, McKinley, Bell, Barr, & Simpson, 2000; Crooks, 1988, 2006;
Natriello, 1987; Sadler, 1989). For many teachers assessment remains an addition to,
4 Peter Rawlins
rather than an integral part of, learning with teachers internal school based
assessment practices often emulating external summative assessment practices in the
belief that this represents good assessment practice (Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003,
Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, & Black, 2004). Large class sizes and heavy workloads can
lead teachers to believe that while formative assessment is a nice idea in theory it
risks being somewhat impractical, too time-consuming and hence incompatible
with the demands of schooling (Carless, 2007, p. 173). In particular, formative
assessment is not well understood by many secondary school teachers and successful
implementation of formative assessment practices is not widespread in secondary
classrooms (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Crooks, 2006; Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, & Black,
2004).
Even when teachers do incorporate formative assessment practices, providing
students with valid and reliable judgements about the quality of their work does not
necessarily lead to improvement in learning and achievement. Students often fail to
recognise formative feedback as a helpful signal and guide, and remind us that it
cannot be assumed that when students are given feedback they will know what to do
with it (Sadler, 1989; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Although most students realise that
they should learn from their assessments, the majority only look at their mark
(Tanner & Jones, 2003, p. 280); their desire to work out how to do better next time
often restricted to unfocussed targets like try harder or be more careful (ibid, p. 280,
italics added). However, as Harlen and James (1997) reminds us:
Formative assessment requires that pupils have a central part in it; pupils
have to be active in their own learning (teachers cannot learn for them) and
unless they come to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and how
they might deal with them, they will not make progress. (p. 372).
Although summative and formative assessment are often thought of as mutually
exclusive, Black and Wiliam (1998) argue that they might be more usefully thought
of as ends of a continuum along which all assessments lie. Under this construct, it is
not the instrument that is formative or summative, but how, and when, the
information gained from the assessment task is used. As such, a single assessment
system can provide both summative information and be used to formatively enhance
students learning. This is best achieved when the design of the assessment system is
consistent with formative assessment principles (Sadler, 1989).
Much of the discourse surrounding NCEA emphasises its role as a summative
assessment system with little attention paid to its potential to direct and enhance
learning. However, when the NCEA was officially launched in 2001 both the
Minister of Education and New Zealand Qualification Authority officials argued that
it was strongly underpinned by a philosophical position of enhancing students
learning. All of this is about learning first. NCEA results are a consequence of
enhanced learning opportunities (Meek, 2001, p. 4). The NCEA provides schools
with an enhanced flexibilityto offer broader and deeper learning for all students
(Mallard, 2001, p. 5).
The notion that assessment should be used to formatively influence students
learning is consistent with other New Zealand educational policy. The primary
Student Participation in Formative Assessment 5
purpose of assessment is to improve students learning and teachers teaching as
both student and teacher respond to the information that it provides (Ministry of
Education, 2007, p. 39). Despite this political rhetoric, the question remains to what
degree do teachers and students perceive that NCEA has the formative potential to
enhance students learning, and how can this potential be best realised?
Although the term formative assessment describes a wide range of teacher and student
practices, this article focuses on aspects of the formative potential of New Zealands
exit qualification system from secondary schoolNCEA. In particular, this article
explores students and teachers perceptions of effective feedback practices in formal
classroom based assessment situations in the senior secondary school and seeks to
examine how these can be more effectively used to enhance students learning. It
initially discusses a sociocultural perspective of learning and Sadlers (1989) theory
of formative assessment used as a conceptual framework. It then outlines a study
undertaken to explore the formative potential of NCEA with findings and
implications discussed in the later section of the article. While acknowledging that
the case study reported is relatively small, and while it is not intended to imply that
the findings of this study are representative of all New Zealand secondary schools, it
is hoped that the exploratory nature (Yin, 2003) of the study will stimulate debate
and further research into how formal assessment systems could be better used to
enhance students learning.
Sociocultural perspectives of learning
Underlying all discussions of assessment are assumptions about the psychology of
learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 16): How we conceptualise learning influences;
how we conceptualise teaching as an activity; and ultimately how we conceptualise
assessment practices. Indeed, Elwood (2006) has argued that we cannot consider
assessment practices along the continuum from summative to formative without
aligned theories of learning and aligned theories of mind (p. 229).
Contemporary sociocultural theories of learning increasingly recognise the situated
nature and interpersonal dimension of knowledge, and the impact of the social
environment in promoting and directing learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Sfard,
2003). The learner is both shaping and being shaped by the community of practice.
However, rather than asking what kinds of cognitive processes and conceptual
structures are involved in learning, sociocultural perspectives ask what kinds of
social engagements provide the proper context for learning to take place (Even &
Tirosh, 2002, p. 232). These theories reconceptualise the roles and responsibilities of
students and teachers in the learning process and offer opportunities to examine
formative assessment practices from a new perspective.
Contemporary sociocultural views of formative assessment see it as information
which guides both the teacher and the student in co-developing the next steps in the
learning process. It is a construct, a name that is given to what should more
accurately be characterised as a social interaction between teacher and pupil which is
intended to have a positive impact on learning (Torrance and Pryor, 1998, p. 10).
This inclusive definition encapsulates a wide spectrum of teacher and student
practices and recognises the importance of the social context of the classroom. In
6 Peter Rawlins
particular, it recognises the centrality of the teacher-student relationship and
advances our understanding beyond treating assessment as a one-sided process
controlled by the teacher to a consideration of teacher-student and student-student
dynamics (Ross, Rolheister, & Hogaboam-Gray, 2002). Information gained from
assessments is used interactively between student and teacher and between peers,
helping learners to become aware of, and in control of, their own learning (Torrance
& Pryor, 1998).
Sociocultural theories of learning promote the increased use of alternative
assessment practices (self- and peer-assessment, observations, portfolios, practical
assessments, investigations and small group projects) that take account of the social
and cultural context in which learning occurs. However, despite the increasing
acceptance of sociocultural learning theories, in-class assessment practices in
secondary schools, particularly in mathematics, are slow to align with changing
views about how we learn (Cavanagh, 2006, Hosking & Shield, 2001; Pfannkuch,
2001; Watt, 2005). Reynolds and Trehan (2000) point to the way in which
contemporary approaches to learning often use traditional methods of assessment
without thinking through the contradictions between the assumptions behind such
methods and the espoused learning objectives. Indeed, Egan (1997) concludes a
discussion on perspectives of contemporary learning theories with the statement:
We will, of course, want evidence that students have learned the content that has
made up the lesson or unit of study; this can be achieved through traditional
techniques (p. 272). However, this does not preclude the use of effective formative
assessment practices and this article seeks to explore how these might be
incorporated into New Zealand secondary schools formal exit qualification system.
Formative assessment
The research project discussed in this article used a framework developed by Sadler
(1989) to explore the potential of the NCEA to provide effective formative
assessment in mathematics classrooms. Sadlers framework consists of three key
characteristics necessary for assessment systems to be considered formative.
Notably, he stated these characteristics from the students perspective. Sadlers three
key components require that the student has to:
(a) Possess a concept of the standard (or goal, or reference level) being aimed
for, (b) compare the actual (or current) level of performance with the standard,
and (c) engage in appropriate action which leads to some closure of the gap
(p.121, emphasis in original).
The first two aspects of Sadlers framework in relation to NCEA have been
addressed elsewhere (Rawlins, 2007, 2008). This article focuses on the third aspect,
namely effective engagement with formative practices that lead to enhanced
students learning.
Student Participation in Formative Assessment 7
The study
Methodology
Given the situated nature of students engagement with formative assessment
practices a case study approach was used to investigate students perceptions of the
formative potential of NCEA. Purposeful sampling design argues that the investigator
wants to discover, understand, and gain insight into a particular issue and therefore
must select a singularity from which the most can be learned (Patton, 1990). As such,
after consultation with School Support Services advisors, and after reviewing
Education Review Office reports, a prospective school was approached. The school
has an established history with Standards Based Assessment (SBA), being one of the
trial schools for Unit Standards in the mid 1990s. The school publicly supports
student autonomy in learning through its prospectus and school website, and has a
reputation for its proactive support and use of SBA. Three Y12 mathematics classes
from this medium to large (1300 students) decile seven urban secondary school
formed the case study singularity for this study.
Students from the three Y12 classes were approached and gave informed consent to
take part in each of the data gathering procedures. Each of the classes was observed
three times in each of terms one, two, and three of the school year. For each set of
observations the first was conducted during the typical teaching of the unit of work,
the second during the period immediately prior to the students sitting the
assessment task, and the final observation was when the students received their
assessed work back. Nine case study students, distributed through the three classes,
had agreed to be involved in the focus group interview component of the data
gathering. These nine students were then placed into two groups and a focus group
interview was conducted in each school term shortly after the set of classroom
observations had been completed. Each of the nine students was then emailed a
series of questions based on themes discussed in the focus group interviews, and
asked to provide any additional comments.
In order to gather a wider range of data, and also to gauge the representativeness of
the case study students of the wider cohort, the Assessment Experience
Questionnaire (Gibbs and Simpson, 2003) was administered to the three classes. Each
of the 36 items uses a five point Likert scale to examine the assessment experiences of
students. The items are designed so that higher scores represent a view of
assessment that is consistent with a formative purpose. Due to absences on the day,
and students electing not to take part in the questionnaire, a 78% response rate was
achieved. To further contextualise the students perceptions, and to gather the
teachers perspectives, a focus group interview and ongoing dialogue with the
teachers also formed part of the data gathering phase of the project.
This research project specifically focused on the interactions resulting from
structured formal assessment events that form part of the students progress towards
the NCEA. This included topic assignments, end of topic assessments, and the
written and oral feedback provided to students subsequent to these assessment
tasks.
8 Peter Rawlins
Findings
The following section reports on two major findings of this research project. In
particular, these findings highlight a lack of agreement between the participant
students and teachers regarding optimum feedback practices. Firstly, the research
teachers perceived that students did not read written feedback offered, and this
perception influenced the amount of written feedback they gave. In contrast,
students provided evidence that they read, valued and used written feedback.
Secondly, teachers perceived that whole-class oral feedback delivered immediately
after the assessment scripts are returned was the most efficient and effective
feedback practice. Students, however, reported that they preferred to engage with
written feedback in collaboration with their peers in the first instance.
Written feedback
The teachers in this research reported that they provided only limited written
feedback on assessed work arguing that it was an inefficient use of their time.
Although marking workload and the desire to return work quickly were identified
by the teachers as factors affecting the amount and the nature of written feedback
offered, these factors appeared overshadowed by the teachers belief that students
dont read written feedback.
Ms. Brown: I almost never give written feedback because I just can't be
bothered writing it down. I will say it to the whole class. I suppose that is
bad. All teachers should spend time writing it down. But I just find that often
the kids don't even read it.
Ms Clarke: I just find that a lot of people just dont want to read written
mathematical things if they got it wrong in the first place. Some do but its
just such a mission to write it down.
In contrast, responses from the questionnaire revealed that students claimed that
they read the feedback provided and tried to understand what the feedback was
saying (=4.0 on the 5 point Likert scale) and were not just reading the grade
(=3.7). They used the feedback to go over what they had done in the assessment
(=3.8) and to help them in subsequent work (=3.7). These claims were confirmed
in the focus group interviews with most students claiming that they were interested
in looking at the questions they found difficult, and the associated feedback. It is of
note is that students often talked about particular pieces of written feedback they
had received despite not having their assessed work in front of them. For example,
the following extract highlights students distinction between written formative
comments and other indications of achievement, such as ticks, crosses, and grades
that they considered of limited formative potential.
Sally: That's why I questioned my graphs. She had ticked my table method
and crossed my graph and I was like... whats going on because my table
method was an exact replica of my graph. I was like Miss, I don't
understand. Why did I get this wrong and she said, you didn't extend it.
Researcher: So perhaps if she had written extend your graph next to it?
Student Participation in Formative Assessment 9
Sally: Yeah, yeah. I would have been like Oh I get it. Ticks and crosses are
not very helpful at all, and neither is just an M (Merit) on the front
A subsequent check of the assessed work revealed a high degree of agreement
between students recollections of the feedback and the actual feedback provided
indicating that students did indeed read the feedback as claimed.
A number of students indicated that they had found feedback on assessment scripts
difficult to understand at times.
James: Sometimes I get lots of ???? and things like whats this? written
on my sheet. I dont find this useful because I dont really know where I went
wrong or why I got that particular question wrong.
In addition to identifying errors in their work, students expressed the view that
feedback should provide scaffolded comments indicating corrective strategies.
Kate: Normally, I am interested to see if I got it right first. I may have been
unsure, and if I got it wrong, I like to know what has to be done to correct it.
Raewyn: I want to see if Im right but if Im wrong, I want to see how to
improve.
Such task-oriented feedback, indicating the next steps in learning, recognises that
students mathematical knowledge is partial and developing and encourages
students to make connections between their existing knowledge and the feedback
provided.
Whole class oral feedback
As noted earlier, the teachers saw whole-class oral feedback as more efficient than
providing written feedback.
Ms. Clarke: I find I am writing the same comments.
Ms. Brown: Same here.
Ms. Clarke: So you may as well talk to them as a class.
Mr. Smith: It is usually the same things coming up again so it is easier if I
write it up on the board.
Since students often had limited future access to their marked scripts because they
were stored by teachers in individual student folders, these oral feedback sessions
formed the primary opportunity for students to engage with the oral and written
feedback given to them.
Students expressed mixed views when asked about the teachers practice of
providing whole-class oral feedback. Although a small number saw it as valuable,
the majority saw the practice of the teacher orally going over large portions of the
test to be an inefficient use of time. In some instances this was because: Going
through the entire test is a bit boring if you get the majority of it right (Hannah),
10 Peter Rawlins
while in other instances: If you got too many questions wrong it can be a bit
overwhelming (Raewyn). Some students also questioned the nature of the oral
feedback. During the classroom observations, it was noted that the teachers often
provided only the correct answer to the questions. However, the students expressed
a clear preference for scaffolded feedback.
Sally: She gave us just the answers for each of the questions. I found that
hopeless. I could not figure out how they got to that answer and I was just
sitting there and...
James: There were a couple of the questions, the really crazy ones, where she
did the first bit for us and then told us what to do next, like you need to
factorise, expand solve and then...
Sally: That was good. That was helpful but she didn't do that for all of them.
James: Its like, pointing you in the right direction, you are learning more,
whereas, when you just get the answer you are just like, oh so what. You
see where to go, and all of a sudden, it kinda clicks into place, and you are
like, oh I see it is just that simple process.
Despite recognising their teachers openness to answering individual queries, the
majority of students indicated a clear preference for working with their peers to
develop corrective strategies. During the class observations when the assessed work
was returned, it was noted that many students were not focusing on the teacher-led
oral feedback and very few asked questions of their teacher, either in the whole-class
forum or subsequently on an individual level. Although some of the students
appeared to be ignoring their returned assessment scripts, others were observed
discussing their assessment scripts with their classmates. This was explored in the
focus group interviews with students reporting that, after a brief initial discussion of
their grades, the conversations quickly turned to discussions of particular questions
on the assessment task with students attempting to understand how the written
feedback related to their work.
Kate: Normally if we have a question wrong we compare and look at the
others working to find out where we went wrong. If we both got it wrong
then we discuss how we view the question. If I cannot see where I went
wrong from my friends assessments then I ask the teacher.
Sally: Often I will ask my peers, especially my great friend Jenny, about a
question before I ask the teacher. It seems to work well because we can fill
most gaps between ourselves.
The majority of students indicated that they would not like the teachers to initiate
individual oral feedback with them. They commented that they needed time to
reflect on any written feedback offered, and try to correct the errors themselves.
Raewyn: I think it would annoy me a bit because I like to try and work it out
first myself and if I can't work it out then I will ask them. But if they just came
round and sat watching me
Student Participation in Formative Assessment 11
When asked about the apparent limited interest in the oral feedback the teachers
interpreted this as students having limited interest in feedback per se and did not
recognise that students were actually asking each other about their assessed work
and the written feedback received. Furthermore, the teachers commented that they
often found the whole-class feedback session difficult to manage.
Ms. Brown: It is something that I do find difficult, how to give that feedback.
How to go over a test that would make the class listen and want to do it,
without having half of the class muck around.
Despite their clear preference for whole-class oral feedback, the teachers were
interested to learn more about effective feedback practices and particular whether
students read written feedback.
Ms. Brown: It would be nice to know if they read it, thats true, and
especially whether they find written, or personal, or group, or board work as
the best delivery of the feedback. I'd be very interested in what would be
most effective in terms of our delivery.
Ms. Clarke: Yeah Id write more if I really thought the kids would read it.
Interestingly, none of the three teachers involved in the research had asked the
students directly about whether they read the written feedback.
Discussion
The following section seeks to provide a perspective of two particular issues
highlighted by this current research project. Firstly, how changes to teachers
feedback practices might more positively impact on students individual and
collective engagement with formative feedback. Secondly, how students and
teachers develop knowledge of the negotiated use and impact of formative
assessment practices on learning.
Student engagement with formative assessment
Implicit in much of the research on effective formative assessment is the assumption
that feedback stimulates the individual to construct the next step in learning in
relative isolation from social stimulus. However, this current research has
demonstrated that students have a natural propensity to engage with written
feedback with their peers. Students are reluctant to ask their teacher for help, and
little attention is paid to teachers oral feedback delivered too soon after the return of
assessment scripts.
This natural propensity for students to work with their peers can be enhanced by
teachers providing explicit opportunities for collaborative engagement with
feedback as a planned activity, therefore helping to establish it as a valid formative
practice (Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 1999; Hargreaves, 2007). This approach is similar
to peer teaching in which one student takes the role of the teacher in relation to
another student. The difference here being that a small group of peers engages with
the feedback offered on individual assessments to enhance the groups collective and
12 Peter Rawlins
individual understanding of the work being considered. The participants are
collectively teaching and learning in a community of practice consistent with a
sociocultural perspective of learning.
The effective use of peer collaboration in assessment practices, including the
collective engagement with formative feedback, has the potential to improve
students independent use of feedback. Indeed research has already identified that
students involvement in peer-assessment enhanced their ability to self-assess their
own work (Black et al., 2003; Ross et al., 1993; Sadler, 1989; 1998). While collaborative
use of formative feedback has the potential to enhance learning, it cannot be
assumed that students are proficient at understanding feedback, self- and peer-
assessing, or working with their peers. It will not be achieved by simply putting
students in small groups. They will need to be provided with opportunities to learn
and practise these skills in their regular classroom setting. The role of the teachers is
critical here. Although the teacher has a less intrusive role in students learning,
his/her importance in directing collaborative learning is no less than in directing
traditional classrooms. The teachers challenge is to encourage students to
collaborate and work alongside each other rather than to compete, thus helping to
establish these formative practices as a normal part of the classroom environment.
Two major implications stem from the perspective that the collective use of feedback
can stimulate learning. Firstly, this notion has implications for the structure of any
planned feedback sessions subsequent to marked scripts being returned. Within the
NCEA, the decrease in the competitive element between students for grade
allocation inherent in SBA provides greater opportunities for teachers to encourage
collective, as well as individual, use of formative feedback. Students will only be able
to improve their grade by improving their understanding of the content, rather than
competing against each other. Accordingly, teachers should plan activities where
students are encouraged to interact with their peers and engage with the written
feedback to enhance learning and deepen understanding. Such collective
engagement with feedback to work it out is consistent with the view that making
connections is an important part of being an effective learner.
Secondly, the notion of collaborative use of feedback has implications for the nature
of the written feedback given to students. Feedback must include enough specific
detail about errors, and how to address them, to allow peer-supported development
of strategies to deepen students learning. It is not sufficient to provide them with
just the answers as evidenced from the extract cited earlier. Students require
scaffolded feedback that allows them to think through and discuss questions with
other students. As such, teachers and students attention is focussed more keenly on
important task-oriented characteristics of effective formative feedback.
The finding that students should initially work with their peers to engage with
written feedback does not preclude the use of oral feedback. It does, however,
require an examination of the timing of the delivery of such feedback. Students in
the current research preferred to use teacher help only when they could not identify
errors and how to correct them from the written feedback. It could be conjectured
that students reluctance to ask their teacher for help is, in part, because they have
had insufficient time to examine the feedback, discuss it with their peers, and
Student Participation in Formative Assessment 13
identify whether they need to ask any questions of the teacher. In an analogous way
to the value of wait time, a delay in teachers asking for questions about the
assessed work could encourage students to critically analyse the written feedback
given, and help them to be in a better position to ask more focussed questions of the
teacher. This might, in turn, help teachers develop awareness of particular
characteristics of their written feedback that are clearly understood or, perhaps more
importantly, not understood by students.
Development of effective formative assessment strategies
Although research has identified that high achieving students independently
develop formative assessment strategies there is little support in the literature for
widespread independent development of effective formative assessment strategies
by middle and low achieving students (e.g., Brookhart, 2001; Higgins et al., 2002;
Hyland, 2000). It is hypothesised in this article that students knowledge of the
formative potential of assessment events is socially and culturally situated. As such,
it is important that this knowledge and understanding is negotiated through the
social discourse between students and their teacher as a normal part of the classroom
environment.
This research has identified that there is a lack of agreement between the participant
students and teachers regarding optimum feedback practices. It is argued here that
this lack of agreement is a result of students and teachers independently, rather than
collectively, developing understandings of effective formative strategies. Greater
engagement in formative assessment practices should be seen as a shared challenge.
Although it is reasonable to expect students to take responsibility for their learning
and engagement in assessment practices, teachers have a pivotal role in creating
appropriate conditions for this to occur. This extends beyond teachers informing
students how they should use assessment information formatively. The way that
teachers use and talk about assessment practices sends important messages to
students; many of these messages are implicit and unintentional (Black & Wiliam,
1998; Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003; Stiggins, 2001). Students must come to believe
that active engagement with feedback is a normal part of learning. As such, the
teacher should encourage an environment where this knowledge is collectively
developed between students and teachers through social discourse. This can best be
achieved if teachers lead and encourage students to come with them (Hipkins et al.
2007, p. 25). As Hattie and Timperley (2007) argue: Teachers and parents often
assume that students share a commitment to academic goals, whereas the reality is
that developing this shared commitment needs to be nurtured and built (p. 89).
An implication for teachers of this position is that, rather than assuming they
understand students propensity and preferences for engaging with feedback,
teachers should work with their students to co-develop a shared understanding of
what constitutes effective feedback practices. Teachers need to expose all students to
a range of formative practices and make explicit links between these practices and
benefits to students learning. This knowledge then resides in the minds of students
and teachers alike, and is a common language that they can share.
14 Peter Rawlins
Conclusion
This article has examined perceptions of the existing formative assessment practices
used within the formal exit qualifications from secondary school, the NCEA. It
identified that teachers and students held differing views on preferred feedback
practices. The teachers perceived that students did not read written feedback, and
this perception significantly influenced the amount of written feedback that they
offered to students. In contrast, students clearly displayed that they read, valued and
used scaffolded written feedback to improve their learning. While the teachers
preferred to offer oral feedback, students preferred to engage with their peers to use
feedback to develop corrective strategies and deepen learning. It has been argued
from a sociocultural perspective that this disparity is indicative of a lack of collective
development of effective formative assessment practices within the normal
classroom setting.
Sociocultural perspectives of learning are underpinned by the belief that students
should be actively involved in developing knowledge within communities of
learners. It has been argued here that, in addition to content knowledge and skills,
students should develop knowledge about, and dispositions towards, active
involvement with formative assessment practices, through normal classroom
activities. By teachers and students talking to each other, the effectiveness of
formative assessment practices can be enhanced through the collective development
of practices which they have joint ownership of. As such, this may lead to increased
formative opportunities in the classroom including those associated with formal
assessment systems.
Correspondence
Peter Rawlins, School of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Massey University, Private Bag
11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: p.rawlins@massey.ac.nz
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Dr Lone Jorgensen for her initial review of this paper.
References
Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for
assessment in New Zealand: Developing students' assessment capabilities,
International Symposium on Assessment for Learning. Queenstown, New Zealand.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for
learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students' formative and summative uses of
assessment information. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(2),
153-169.
Carless, D. (2007). Conceptualizing pre-emptive formative assessment. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(2), 171-184.
Student Participation in Formative Assessment 15
Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H., et al. (2000). Literature
review: the effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on
educational outcomes. Wellington, New Zealand: Research Division Ministry of
Education.
Cavanagh, M. (2006). Mathematics teachers and working mathematically: Responses
to curriculum change. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen & M. Chinnappan
(Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces. (Proceedings of the 29th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol 1. pp. 115-
122). Adelaide: MERGA.
Crooks, T. (2006). Assessment for learning in New Zealand: What's happening and what's
next? Paper presented at the What's next with assessment for learning conference.
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: possibilities, boundaries and limitations.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 215-232.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students'
mathematical learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 219-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2003, September). Measuring the response of students to
assessment: The Assessment Experience Questionnaire. Paper presented at the 11th
Improving Student Learning Symposium, Hinckley, Leicestershire.
Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 169-208.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer:
Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in
Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64.
Hipkins, R., Wylie, C., & Hodgen, E. (2007, April). Can standards-based qualifications
improve low-performing students' engagement in learning, and their achievement?
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Chicago.
Hosking, P., & Shield, M. (2001). Feedback practices and the classroom culture. In J.
Bobis, B. Perry & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond. (Proceedings of the
24th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia,
Vol. 1, pp. 289-297). Sydney: MERGA.
Hyland, P. (2000). Learning from feedback on assessment. In P. Hyland & A. Booth
(Eds.), The Practice of University History Teaching. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Mallard, T. (2001). Minister launches campaign QA News, 38, 5.
Meek, N. (2001). Information campaign lifts off. QA News, 38, 4.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning
Media.
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational
Psychologists, 22, 155-175.
16 Peter Rawlins
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London:
Sage Publications.
Pfannkuch, M. (2001). Assessment of school mathematics: Teachers perceptions and
practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(3), 185-203.
Rawlins, P. (2007). Students' perceptions of the formative potential of the National
Certificate of Educational Achievement. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Rawlins, P. (2008). Unlocking the formative potential of NCEA. New Zealand Journal
of Teachers Work, 5(2), 105-118.
Reynolds, M., & Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: A critical perspective. Studies in
Higher Education, 25(3), 267-278.
Ross, J. A., Rolheister, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2002). Influences on student
cognitions about evaluation. Assessment in Education, 9(1), 81-95.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Sciences, 18, 119-144.
Sadler, R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in
Education, 5(1), 77-84.
Sfard, A. (2003). Balancing the unbalanceable: The NCTM standards in light of
theories of learning mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter
(Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp.
353-392). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2003). Self-efficacy in mathematics and students' use of self-
regulated learning strategies during assessment events. In N. A. Pateman, B. J.
Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the 25th conference
of PME-NA (pp. 275-282): University of Hawai'i.
The New Zealand Assessment Academy. (2009). Towards defining, assessing and
reporting against National Standards for literacy and numeracy in New Zealand,
International Symposium on Assessment for Learning. Queenstown, New Zealand.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative
assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning
and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Watt, H. (2005). Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in
mathematics: A study with secondary mathematics teachers in Sydney, Australia.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 21-44.
Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment
for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49-65.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage
Publication.
Manuscript received: 21 October 2009
Manuscript revised: 25 March 2010
Accepted: 26 April 2010
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.