If you play a word association game with most teachers (something akin to “Mallet’s Mallet”) and say the word “assessment”, what is the word most commonly returned? I would hazard a few answers here, but in my experience, it’s “test”. For me, this uncovers a fundamental misunderstanding of what Assessment for Learning IS and how it manifests itself in our classrooms. This blog is a response to the, as ever, excellent, blogging of David Didau @LearningSpy and his most recent piece regarding the efficacy of AfL, “Chasing our tails – is AfL all it’s cracked up to be?“. Read it, if you haven’t already, it’ll make you think about some of the furniture of the last ten years of CPD in a different way, in fact read all of David’s blogs over this weekend, they’ll fill you full of ideas right when you need them before going back to school.
In this case, I think the seductive nature of an argument against something many of us have been “told” to do for a considerable amount of time without a clear definition of what it really IS is flawed. Teachers love that, “see, I told you it was crap”, moment, it’s in their makeup. With a twitter handle like @AfLPie, I couldn’t really let this one lie.
The first thing to note is that AfL was never really AfL, it’s “Formative Assessment”. A term too steeped in the theory rather than the practice of classroom teaching that it was comfortably packaged as something more “teacher friendly” and initialism heavy for CPD needs. Once you start to unpack where formative assessment sits with summative, diagnostic and ipsative assessment, teachers are either reaching for dust laden boxes of Professional Studies notes or asking when coffee or lunch will be. Neither situation is conducive to the “rapid” improvement needed in many schools. As acknowledged by David in his blog and in the comments, the implementation of AfL at school level, after the Kings Medway project and the advent of The National Strategies, was flawed in that it provided a tickbox structure for an AfL “lesson” or series of lessons in which certain features were key and “had” to be included: objective setting, success criteria, plenary blah blah blah. Now I’m not a Strategies apologist, they did what was needed and, in many cases, made teaching satisfactory when it wasn’t and good where it wasn’t. What they didn’t or couldn’t do was make inroads in improving the already great teachers. They were doing it already.
The introduction of jargon to describe already existing pedagogical entities made many colleagues uncomfortable and challenged their own perceptions of their own practice. “What we’re doing/learning today”, became objectives or targets or aims (depending on school or training institution), “ingredients” became success criteria, add plenary and keep going until the morale of the best teachers you’ve seen is eroded beyond repair. Many of those colleagues were practising the pedagogy that Black &Wiliam used to write “Inside the black box” in the first place (it’s important to note that “black box” is itself a synthesis, a la Hattie, of a large number of other studies of what works in classrooms). Considering that teachers’ performance does not vary greatly after the first three years, the introduction of this “new” idea made many question the core of what they did every day that actually “worked”. It was packaged and presented poorly. I get why. There was a job to do. But now we’re left with an Ofsted that isn’t too worried about process and is instead concerned almost exclusively with product so we’re scrambling around for what “structure” to put on classroom teaching and so questioning AfL?
Teachers should have been empowered to identify where aspects of their practice matched that of the effective teaching observed by and studied by the Assessment Reform Group, kind of like how Kings Medway was carried out. They should then have been supported in building on those strengths to create, potentially loads of different styles in different classrooms, but with one outcome: great teaching and learning as a result of it.
Dylan Wiliam has himself pointed out recently that many schools are not “doing” AfL in the way that it was intended, instead seeing it as tracking progress and inputting assessment information into a variety of systems to see where intervention needs to take place. As an overarching theory one can see what they’re doing but it ain’t AfL or formative assessment as it was intended.
The best teachers, many of them, to some extent intuitively teach with a formative style. Constantly assessing performance to, as David says, “infer” where learning may be occurring and then “measure” in its crudest sense in terms of progress. All questioning is assessment, all task setting is assessment, hell, most of what we would recognise as teaching is really assessment. The long game with formative assessment (and all teaching?) is learning, as David says, it’s too tricky an entity to imagine that we can observe it and control it in a simple input/output model, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of AfL. Chris Hildrew (@chrishildrew) makes the point in his comment on David’s blog that assessment of progress in one lesson is neither necessary or desirable but that it IS a necessary skill in a teacher’s short and medium term planning in order to cater for gaps in knowledge or observable skills. This is what the best practitioners of an AfL “style” do, many of them pre-empting areas where persistent difficulty is likely to occur in the light of previous assessment feedback or information – sometimes correcting misconceptions within a lesson, sometimes over a series of lessons or a topic, using assessment opportunities to provide the learner with information about where they are in relation to where they need to be and the teacher with information about what they need to do to cater for these difficulties with acquisition of knowledge. As Chris points out, the input/output model WAS debunked by Black & Wiliam.
The pedagogical “baby” that David is searching for at the heart of AfL or formative assessment is the process of unlocking the feedback loop and the processes of understanding what “good” looks like. The power of modelling, success criteria, comment only marking etc were, in many cases, introduced to teachers through the lens of AfL. The premise at the heart of AfL isn’t that we chase progress, it’s that we see it as a longer term result of the feedback that we give through the process of assessment – an ongoing process. Some may laugh and say “that’s just good teaching” but it is also an approach outlined through AfL or Formative Assessment. It is not enough to suggest that “we’ve always tested kids” then taught them and so on ad infinitum,the process of Formative Assessment or AfL is about making misconceptions concrete and adapting what we do to perhaps introduce more “deliberate” practice – not just moving on to the next topic.
Key to this idea is the feedback loop (noun) but also the idea that feedback “loops” (verb). As we introduce new information these loops begin to overlap, almost creating a spiral effect and, where they overlap, areas of persistent error that require teachers to build this into future planning alongside new information. (I will be writing about this in more detail in the coming months and also speaking about it at Teaching & Learning Takeover in Southampton in October) AfL, or a Formative approach to assessment allows us to collect this information and adapt future lessons rather than following module plans or lesson plans slavishly in a content driven nightmare. It was Black & Wiliam that first advocated the primacy of feedback before The Sutton Trust or Hattie, but they, themselves acknowledge that they stand on the shoulders of the studies that they based their initial work on too.
It’s seductive to imagine that what we’ve been told all this time is nonsense. It’s often more challenging to consider what you know works and how this can be salvaged within an education “industry” that is hungry for newer ideas that may provide the panacea to all our ills. AfL or Formative Assessment was here well before this in the practice of many colleagues far more experienced than me and is one of the key frameworks within which much of the more recently discussed ideas, including those from the more easily digestible tomes of neuroscience, fit.
Cards on the table, for the past five years I’ve been an AST whose specialisms are, at least on paper: English & Assessment for Learning. I have spent a lot of that time trying to undo some of the poor implementation of AfL and aiming to persuade colleagues of its worth as a way to structure the delivery of much of what they do. I just couldn’t let it lie.
I also do training, conferences, weddings, bar mitzvahs… 😉