ArticlePDF Available

THE MANIFESTATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING ASSESSMENT IN THE STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Authors:

Abstract

Studies of the condition of education show that global and local changes are ongoing. This gives an impetus to explore new ways to improve the system of learning achievements and progress of Lithuanian pupils as it mismatches the expectations of the society. The study of The National Agency for School Evaluation (Quality of Activity of General Education Schools, 2015) demonstrates that the majority of Lithuanian schools are unable to adapt quickly and their curricula are focused on students' knowledge and development of academic abilities. Assessment and self-assessment of pupils' attainments, application of feedback in education remain the most problematic components of a lesson. Meanwhile, studies have shown that higher educational attainments are more determined by these processes. This research analysed the strategic documents of secondary schools that regulate assessment of the teaching and learning process. The chosen approach was the analysis of documents' content based on the manifest analysis type, which helped to "decode" the action of assessment for students teaching and learning in the education practice. The following episodes that are at the core of the whole assessment system were used in the analysis: the manifestation of teaching and learning assessment types (diagnostic, formative, summative); the manifestation of assessment attitudes (assessment of learning, assessment for learning and assessment as learning); the manifestation of assessment orientation to all dimensions of personality growth (subject skills, general competences, maturity of personality); the manifestation of roles in the process of assessment of education participants (students, teachers).
THE MANIFESTATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
ASSESSMENT IN THE STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS OF SECONDARY
SCHOOLS
A. Kazlauskiene, R. Gaucaite
Siauliai University (LITHUANIA)
Abstract
Studies of the condition of education show that global and local changes are ongoing. This gives an
impetus to explore new ways to improve the system of learning achievements and progress of
Lithuanian pupils as it mismatches the expectations of the society. The study of The National Agency
for School Evaluation (Quality of Activity of General Education Schools, 2015) demonstrates that the
majority of Lithuanian schools are unable to adapt quickly and their curricula are focused on students’
knowledge and development of academic abilities. Assessment and self-assessment of pupils’
attainments, application of feedback in education remain the most problematic components of a
lesson. Meanwhile, studies have shown that higher educational attainments are more determined by
these processes. This research analysed the strategic documents of secondary schools that regulate
assessment of the teaching and learning process. The chosen approach was the analysis of
documents’ content based on the manifest analysis type, which helped to “decode” the action of
assessment for students teaching and learning in the education practice. The following episodes that
are at the core of the whole assessment system were used in the analysis: the manifestation of
teaching and learning assessment types (diagnostic, formative, summative); the manifestation of
assessment attitudes (assessment of learning, assessment for learning and assessment as learning);
the manifestation of assessment orientation to all dimensions of personality growth (subject skills,
general competences, maturity of personality); the manifestation of roles in the process of assessment
of education participants (students, teachers).
Keywords: teaching and learning assessment, secondary school.
1 INTRODUCTION
Studies of the condition of education show that global and local changes are ongoing. This gives an
impetus to explore new ways to improve the system of learning achievements and progress of
Lithuanian pupils as it mismatches the expectations of the society.
The study of The National Agency for School Evaluation ([25]) demonstrates that the majority of
Lithuanian schools are unable to adapt quickly and their curricula are focused on students’ knowledge
and development of academic abilities. Assessment and self-assessment of pupils’ attainments,
application of feedback in education remain the most problematic components of a lesson. Meanwhile,
studies have shown that higher educational attainments are more determined by these processes
([34], [15], [9]).
Assessment is a powerful tool to perfect the process of teaching and learning ([10]). According to
Marzan (2003), any improvement of learning and teaching must be based on efficient and appropriate
practise of teaching and learning of students. The manifestation of such practise is regulated by
school-confirmed evaluation rules (which are deliberated with students, parents and social partners).
Reorientation in education to the results-oriented (self-)education paradigm ([28], [6]) is also
essentially changing the approaches of didactics. The necessity for such systemic changes in
Lithuania is perceived at the strategic level and is included in the main documents governing
education ([20], [8]), but its implementation in educational practice is complicated. This research
analysed the strategic documents of secondary schools that regulate assessment of the teaching and
learning process. The chosen approach was the analysis of documents’ content based on the
manifest analysis type, which has helped to “decode” the action of assessment for teaching and
learning of students in the education practice. In Lithuania, each education institution following the
strategic documents regulating the national system of education and complying with the local context,
students’ needs and parents’ possibilities creates its own system of assessment of individual progress.
Proceedings of EDULEARN19 Conference
1st-3rd July 2019, Palma, Mallorca, Spain
ISBN: 978-84-09-12031-4
8052
2 METHODOLOGY
The data collection for the research proceeded by employing the method of content analysis applied to
the documents which comprised strategic documents regulating the procedure of assessment of
pupils’ attainments and progress in secondary schools. The research sample consisted of 60
Lithuanian secondary schools which were randomly selected from 60 municipalities (one school from
each municipality). Compulsory documents regulating the procedure of assessment of students’
attainments and progress in schools were chosen for the investigation. The conducted content
analysis of the documents allows us stating that schools must have the procedure documents
regulating assessment of teaching and learning, which must be publicly available under obligation in
compliance with the approved national strategic documents. The analysis of the documents employed
a chosen manifest type of analysis because directly expressed, obviously manifesting components
without searching for a hidden content are more suitable for this case ([27]).
The following episodes that are at the core of the whole assessment system were used in the
analysis: the manifestation of teaching and learning assessment types (diagnostic, formative,
summative); the manifestation of assessment attitudes (assessment of learning, assessment for
learning and assessment as learning); the manifestation of assessment orientation to all dimensions of
personality growth (subject skills, general competences, maturity of personality); the manifestation of
roles in the process of assessment of education participants (students, teachers).
3 RESULTS
3.1 Theoretical Approaches to Manifestation of Assessment of Teaching and
Learning
Research studies have proven that students’ learning attainments are determined by a balanced
system of assessment. Scientists ([11], [24]) have presented many pieces of evidence proving that
students’ attainments depend on the applied system of assessment. When assessment is planned
with regard to the learning goal, it becomes the fundamental of conscious learning ([13]). The system
of assessment of teaching and learning employed by an education institution must comprise the
following elements: comply with proportions according to assessment types (diagnostic, formative,
summative) ([30], [14], [15], [35], [5]); to balance manifestation of assessment provisions (assessment
of learning, assessment for learning, assessment as learning) ([19], [9]); to focus on all dimensions of
personality growth: subject abilities, general competences, maturity of personality ([22]) in compliance
with the purpose to balance the roles of participants (in this case, we will analyse the roles of a
teacher and a student only) ([32]).
3.1.1 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which proportionately meets the
assessment types.
In the system of assessment of students’ attainments, all types of assessment (diagnostic, formative,
summative) are equally important and perform their specific functions. In Lithuania, attention is
focused only on tests and examinations which can only assess knowledge and specific abilities. There
is lack of methods which would help to assess (and self-assess) student’s general competences and
and the potential for learning ([25]). To allow the system of assessment successfully function at
various levels (student, teacher, school, national level), it is important to provide that all assessment
types are coordinated with each other ([7]). To ensure this coherence, it is important to know the
opportunities provided by each assessment type.
3.1.2 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which includes balanced
manifestation of assessment provisions.
The diversity of established assessment forms and assessment methods implementing them in
Lithuania is high; therefore, present-day teachers enthusiastically use multitude of suggested
assessment tools. Nevertheless, abundance of suggestions requires teachers’ critical attitudes
employed while selecting them, i.e. it is important not only to formally recognise them according to a
given classification but also to assess them in compliance with the set education aims and added
pedagogical value for a student reaching for set aims because it is the only way to make better
decisions in pursuit of progress in every learner. According to the purpose of performed assessment,
experts of education, scientists ([19], [9]) follow three provisions: assessment of learning, assessment
for learning, assessment as learning. The situation of the Lithuanian comprehensive education
8053
conditions as well as the goals set in strategic documents currently actualise the provisions of
assessment for learning and assessment as learning as well as the necessity of practical
manifestation of them because the role of assessment forms meeting the latter provisions for
personality growth and maturity is more significant than assessment of learning. Therefore, teachers
planning assessment of students should correct the planning of assessment to pay more attention to
assessment for learning and assessment as learning.
3.1.3 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which focuses on all dimensions of
personality growth: subject abilities, general competences, maturity of personality.
When we deal with a person’s potential, we should not focus only on the potential of subject abilities
(21). Such provisions are followed also by Lithuanian strategic documents which set an aim to assess
students’ subject, general abilities and maturity of personality. The performed research works ([33],
[18], [3], [4]) illustrate that maturity of personality not only determines attainments and progress but
also successful performance in the future.
3.1.4 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which balances the roles of
participants according to their purpose.
Assessment of individual progress is efficient when it functions in school as a system where each
participant of the education process has his/ her own role and accepts it with responsibility. Research
studies demonstrate ([16], [1], [23]) that open, trust-based collaboration of all interested parties is one
of the most important factors for child’s successful learning. Viewing it from the learner’s position, self-
assessment of own attainments becomes a significant component of not only entire system of
assessment ([11]) but relates to management of own processes of learning and acceptance of higher
responsibility for the learning ([3]). Students who are oriented towards management of own learning as
well as self-assessment are keen to more extensively use the strategies based on meta-learning and
are more successful ([29]). Therefore, it is important to all parties to come to an agreement on what
aim and assessment strategies will be applied, what success criteria ([12], [2]) and what distribution of
responsibilities ([17]) will be set.
3.2 Research data analysis
Manifestation of assessment is treated as part of the culture of learning. The research data is
analysed in compliance with the consistency and logic emphasised in the theoretical provisions stating
that assessment of the assessment system existing in an institution will allow viewing it as a
fundamental of assessment conducted by pedagogues determining practical manifestation of
assessment in pedagogue’s daily performance. The research results are presented by introducing the
manifestation examples and interpretations of them in each episode.
3.2.1 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which proportionately meets
the assessment types.
While assessing students’ learning progress and learning attainments, the formative, diagnostic,
summative assessments are employed. Even though in many cases documents mention all three
forms of assessment, still manifestation of them is different in both their volume and content. The
diagnostic assessment performed at the beginning and end of the stage” (D3),<...> throughout the
entire education process” (D35) is the most detailed in its planning. The purpose of the diagnostic
assessment is usually associated with the beginning of a new topic, chapter, aim to find out obtained
knowledge; however, there are some cases when this type us used in the running and at the end of
the learning process, too: applied before starting a new chapter, <....> when learning or having
completed the topic” (D8).
The summative assessment used after ending a programme, course, module (D33-D54); <…> is
dedicated to identify students’ attainments and to diagnose, too” (D7, D8, D33-D41, D43, D48-D54), to
prove “<...> student’s attainments at the end of the curriculum” [D35; D38; D41]. In the course of this
assessment, it is necessary to <...> generalise, sum up the results and certify” (D31, D32, D36, D38,
D42). “Students’ progress and attainments are assessed by employing the 10-point scale” (D38, D42;
D56), and obtained results are considered as legitimate and significant at personal, institutional and
national levels. This determines that in many cases the school community discuss on the principles
and elements of such assessment, follow common agreements.
8054
The formative assessment is applied in lesson when assessing students’ individual progress each day
and continuously. Therefore, in majority of cases the documents indicate that the formative
assessment “is planned by a teacher within the lesson framework” (D31, D34, D41 etc.), and
manifestation of common agreements is more an exemption than a rule. Since the results of the
formative assessment are not that directly significant at institutional or national levels, an assumption
can be drawn that the planning of such assessment is a teacher’s personal matter. However, without
foreseeing possibilities of school community to agree upon the purpose, aims, methods, criteria,
manifestation etc. of formative assessment, it may make an impact on a distorted perception of the
essence of formative assessment, episodic character of its manifestation, eclectics. This is proven by
the cases when formative assessment is perceived as an action intended for <...> forming a mark
<...>, and a formed mark is written down <...>” (D42); formative assessment is mistakenly
understood as formal assessment or assessment types. Besides mentioned forms of assessment,
cumulative, criteria-based, normative assessments are singled out, too (D2, D5, D12). The purpose of
formative assessment is not completely perceived and this is demonstrated by considering formative
assessment as “increasing students’ self-confidence <...>”; however, this can be achieved <...> by
praising on the basis of merit, avoiding threatening by referring to marks” (D17). It is observed that
threatening by referring to marks is not eliminated, since it is only suggested to avoid it.
3.2.2 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which includes balanced
manifestation of assessment provisions.
Descriptors of the assessment procedure foresee assessment of <...> students’ knowledge,
application of it, understanding, subject-related abilities, skills, endeavours, personal progress, general
abilities” (D32, D38, D43), and aim at assessing the level of students’ attainments and progress,
finding out strengths, needs for learning of each student <...>” (D31-D33, D36, D38, D39, D42, D47,
D51), as well as “student’s learning is being corrected with regard to the information regarding
assessment(D36, D38, D44). Obviously, analysis of student’s learning and insight into problems and
opportunities for solution of them are delegated to a teacher, and a student as such remains passive.
In single cases it is suggested <...> to make decisions jointly with a student and his parents (foster
parents, caregivers) concerning further steps in learning, necessary support to a student” (D33, D36,
D38-D42, D47). Moreover, when foreseeing various procedures defining assessment, such verbs as
to diagnose, to find out, to enhance, to present, to apply, to help, to inform and the like dominate,
which allows supposing that actions are traditionally focused on initiatives of a teacher as a main actor
and direct towards provision of support to a learner in descriptors of the assessment procedure. This
allows drawing an assumption that the teacher’s role in education practice will also be prevailing and
in many cases the individualisation and not personalisation approach will dominate, i.e. the provision
of assessment of learning prevails. Manifestation of the provision of assessment for learning is
recorded only when delegating to a student <...> to self-assess own level of attainment, to set the
goals of learning” (D31-D33, D36, D38-D40, D42, D47, D51], even though the initiative of the
decision-making remains with a teacher, when “self-assessment forms and periodicity are foreseen by
a subject teacher with regard to the level of attainment in class, students’ needs” (D34). It can be
stated that internal strategic documents of schools include prevailing manifestation of the provision of
assessment of learning; the provision of assessment for learning is expressed much lesser; and the
provision of assessment as learning actually does not exist.
3.2.3 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which focuses on all
dimensions of personality growth: subject abilities, general competences, maturity of
personality.
Synergy of assessment of maturity of personality, subject-related attainments and attainments is
regulated by Lithuanian strategic documents; therefore, this manifestation should also be
characteristic to local documents of schools. Typically, many cases point out that they seek helping a
student to learn and become mature as a personality” (D1, D31-D55). Even though majority of cases
indicate that<...> assessment must stimulate maturity of personality <...>(D1), still almost in all
cases manifestation of the dimension of maturity of personality in a document remains declarative
and beyond details. In single cases, the striving to assess students’ behaviour and discipline in marks
<...> in each lesson, which at the end of each moth is converted into a mark and, with regard to the
amount of weekly hours given to a taught subject, is written down as a mark for a particular taught
subject” (D43) shows that the very maturity of personality is perceived improperly.
Major attention is focused on assessment of subject-related attainments in accordance with single
taught subjects in many cases details of their assessment are presented in separate sections of
8055
descriptors of the assessment procedure, such as Assessment of Students’ Progress and
Attainments in Taught Subjects(D8) or in sub-sections titled by a common phrase, where procedures
of assessment of taught subjects are presented in detail.
In some cases, the striving to assess general competences is expressed directly<...> to help
teacher have insight of student’s learning possibilities, to develop personal, initiative- and creativity-
based, social cognition, communicative and knowing how to learn competences, to find out problems
and gaps” (D32), <...> to set goals of learning <...> (D1, D34, D38, D46, D53). However, in many
cases, manifestation of assessment of general competences is typical, usually episodic and oriented
towards separate elements of knowing how to learn, such as “to help a student to know himself/
herself, to understand his/ her own strengths and weaknesses, to self-assess the level of own
attainments, to set goals of learning” (D1, D31-D33, D36, D38-D40, D42, D47, D51).
The content analysis of documents demonstrated that descriptors of assessment procedures had
inconsistent manifestation of dimensions of subject-related abilities, general competences and
maturity of personality. Manifestation of subject attainments dominates; assessment of general
competences is poorer expressed; and assessment of maturity of personality is expressed in a
declarative manner, illustrating that the provisions established in national documents regulating
education are complied with.
3.2.4 Episode: The teaching and learning assessment system which balances the roles of
participants according to their purpose.
In the documents of some schools, the roles of participants of the education process are defined in
separate sections (D33-D35, D39). In other cases, the roles of participants can be judged by the
responsibilities delegated in the course of the assessment process. The teacher’s role is more focused
on planning, recording, introduction, information, design of methods and, in separate cases, support to
a student, generalisation of accumulated data: <...> is planning learning attainments and assessment
of students with regard to attainments, needs and possibilities of students in class <...>” (D2, D3, D9,
D34, D35, D38). Also, attention is paid to monitoring of own performance aiming to “estimate success
of teacher’s <...> work” (D1), teachers <...> ensure coherence of methods and forms of assessment
of students’ progress and attainments in school <...>” (D4, D18, D27).
The role of students is focused on reacting to teacher’s suggestions, independent or teacher-assisted
taking care of own learning, i.e. <...> to analyse attainments in own learning” (D45), <...> to self-
assess own attainments and progress, to plan further learning <...>” (D2, D3, D34); to know “<...> the
norms and criteria of assessment, procedure of assignment for each taught subject <...> (3); “<...> to
accumulate proofs of all subject-related competences in a portfolio for each assessed subject <...>”
(D5). The descriptors presenting the purpose of usage of assessment information may have no
students as a target group to receive this information (it is intended for a teacher, parents,
administrative staff only (D5)) or they appear when there is a need to make decisions concerning
further learning (D14) (eliminating an initiative to be an active participant in own learning since the
beginning of the learning process). As mentioned earlier, analysis of manifestation of provisions of
assessment points out traditional roles focused more on initiatives of a teacher as a major actor.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The research works prove that students’ attainments in learning are determined by a balanced
system of assessment. An efficient system of teaching and learning in institution must
encompass the following elements: meet the proportions according to assessment types
(diagnostic, formative, summative); to balance manifestation of assessment provisions
(assessment of learning, assessment for learning, assessment as learning); focus on all
dimensions of personality growth: subject abilities, general competences, maturity of
personality; to balance the roles of participants according to the purpose.
In the practise of education in Lithuanian schools, in most cases the priority is given to
diagnostic assessment. Schools prioritise the traditional measures and methods of assessment
(e.g. tests, control assignment, questionnaires) that most often state the students (self-)learning.
Such assessment has deeper traditions in the application of education practise because
apparently they are clearer to a teacher and the procedures of evaluation require less time etc.
A general tendency is observed: manifestation of different episodes is complex, reciprocally
conditioning. For instance, a traditionally formed prioritising attitude towards subject-related
8056
attainments conditions domination of the diagnostic and summative assessment forms, and the
formative assessment in the school assessment system manifests episodically. This impacts
the most usual assessment of students’ learning (without giving priority to provisions:
assessment for learning or assessment as learning), and the assessment process as such has
not become a mode of students’ learning in daily learning activities. This determines
misbalanced manifestation of the roles of participants of the education process where initiatives
are placed at teacher’s disposal.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Addi-Raccah, R. Ariv-Elyashiv, “Parent empowerment and teacher professionalism: Teachers’
perspective,” Urban Education, vo. 43, no, 3, pp. 394415, 2008.
[2] A. Harris, J. Goodall, “Do parents know they matter Engaging all parents in learning,” Educational
Research, vol. 13, pp. 277289, 2008.
[3] A. Kazlauskienė, R. Gaučaite, R. Pocevičienė, “Implementation of the Self-directed Learning
System in General Education Schools: Analysis of Manifestation of Changes,” Journal of
Education and Training. vol. 2, no. 1. pp. 155167, 2015.
[4] A. M. Sorlie, A. K. Hagen, T. Ogden, “Social competence and antisocial behavior: continuity and
distinctiveness across early adolescence,” Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 121144, 2008.
[5] C. A. Tomlinson, “Learning to love assessment,” Educational Leadership, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 41
51, 2007.
[6] C. Shewbridge, K. Godfrey, Z. Hermann, D. Nusche, OECD Reviews of School Resources:
Lithuania 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2016.
[7] C. Tomlinson, T. Moon, Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom.
Alexsandria, VA: ASCD, 2013.
[8] Concept of a Good School (2015). Retrieved from
https://www.smm.lt/uploads/documents/Pedagogams/Geros%20mokyklos%20koncepcija.pdf
[9] D. A. Sousa, Brain-friendly assessment. Learning Science International, 2015.
[10] D. Christodoulou, Making Good Progress: The Future of Assessment for Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2017.
[11] D. Wiliam, Practical Ideas for Classroom Formative Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.dylanwiliamcenter.com/practical-ideas-for-classroom-formative-assessment/.
[12] E. Young, Assessment for Learning: Embedding and Extending. Retrieved from
http://www.itc.on-
rev.com/iassessment.co.uk/Resources/C1/A%20fL_Embedding_and_Extending.pdf.
[13] G. Owocki, Y. Goodman, Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann, 2002.
[14] J. Chappuis, “How I am doing?,” Educational Leadership, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 3641, 2012.
[15] J. Hattie, Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge,
2012.
[16] J. L. Epstein, School, family and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving
schools. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2011.
[17] J. Rutland, H. Hall, “Involving Families in the Assessment Process,” Dialog, vo. 16, no. 4, pp. 113
120, 2013.
[18] K. W. Merrell, J. C. Felver-Gant, K. M. Tom, “Development and Validation of a Parent Report.
Measure for Assessing Social-Emotional Competencies of Children and Adolescents,” Journal of
Child and Family Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 529540, 2011.
[19] L. Earl, Assessment as learning. Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2013.
8057
[20] Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved from https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.395105
[21] M. Nicholas, “Student Knowledge: Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting,” Journal of
Educational Enquiry, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 116, 2015.
[22] M. Nicholas, “Student Knowledge: Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting,” Journal of
Educational Enquiry, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 116, 2015.
[23] N. E. El Nokali, H. J. Bachman, E. Votruba-Drzal, “Parent Involvement and Children's Academic
and Social Development in Elementary School,” Child Development, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 8694,
2010.
[24] P. Black, D. William, “Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment,”
Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 7, pp. 113, 1998.
[25] Quality of general education activities (2015). http://www.nmva.smm.lt/wp
content/uploads/2012/12/Metinis-prane%C5%A1imas-maketas-02.04.pdf
[26] R. J. Marzano, What works in schools: Translating research into action? Alexandria, VA: ASCD,
2003.
[27] R. M. Groves, F. J. Fowler, M. P. Couper, J. M. Lepkowski, E. Singer, R. Tourangeau, Survey
Methodology. Published by Wiley-Interscience, 2009.
[28] Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes. Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM/2012/0669 final. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1389776578033&uri=CELEX:52012DC0669
[29] S. A. Coutinho, „The Relationship Between Goals, Metacognition and Academic Success,“
Educate, vol. 1, pp. 3947, 2007.
[30] S. Brookhart, “Preventing feedback fizzle,” Educational Leadership, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 2529,
2012.
[31] S. E. Myrick, G. A. Martorel, “Sticks and stones may break my Bonos: protective factors for the
effects of perceived discrimination on social competence in adolescence,” Personal relationships,
vol. 18, pp. 487451, 2011.
[32] S. Earle, “The challenge of balancing key principles in teacher assessment,” Journal of Emergent
Science, vo. 12, pp. 4147, 2017.
[33] Skills for Social Progress. The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Skills Study, 2015.
[34] The Teaching and Learning Toolkit. An Accessible Summary of Educational Research on
Teaching 516 Year Olds, 2014.
[35] V. J. Shute, Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, vol. 78(1), pp. 153
189, 2008.
8058
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Currently particular emphasis is placed on adults’ rather than children’s self-directed learning. As to children’s learning, it is dominated by episodic rather than systematic type of self-directed learning theory and practice. For a long time children as learners were undervalued, focusing more on the educator and on teaching techniques. Presenting the research on experience of implementing the self-directed (self-)education system, the authors of the article emphasise the importance of “liberal” learner-centred learning in childhood because namely then the foundations of learning management skills, which are based on a peculiar pace, goals, perspectives, style of learning, later determining adult learning culture too, are formed. Applying the method of semi-structured data collection, using reflective writing, manifestation of changes that took place implementing the (self-)education system was analysed.
Article
Full-text available
Article
At a time when national and international high-stakes testing has assumed such prominence, one might begin to wonder about the status of teacher judgement when assessing and reporting on children’s knowledge and skills against the descriptors specified in curriculum standards. Were standardised test results congruent with the judgements that teachers make when reporting on students’ achievement, concern about how one type of judgement might compare with another would perhaps be unwarranted. This article draws on research that has investigated whether standardised assessments in the state of Victoria, Australia are actually comparable with teacher’s judgements about their students’ work to illustrate that discrepancies do exist. These results have been interpreted within an analytical framework that derives from Aristotle’s (350BC/2000) distinction between three types of knowledge, namely epistemic, technical and phronetic knowledge.
Book
Accession Number: 2012-07127-000. Partial author list: First Author & Affiliation: Hattie, John; Melbourne Education Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Release Date: 20120611. Publication Type: Book (0200). Format Covered: Print. ISBN: 978-0-415-69014-0, Hardcover; 978-0-415-69015-7, Paperback; 978-0-203-18152-2, Electronic. Language: English. Major Descriptor: Academic Achievement; Learning; School Based Intervention; Teachers; Teaching Methods. Minor Descriptor: Classroom Management; Meta Analysis; Preservice Teachers; Student Teachers. Classification: Curriculum & Programs & Teaching Methods (3530). Population: Human (10). Age Group: Childhood (birth-12 yrs) (100); Adolescence (13-17 yrs) (200); Adulthood (18 yrs & older) (300). Intended Audience: Psychology: Professional & Research (PS). References Available: Y. Page Count: 269.