Download - Students' Perceptions of Literacy Assessment

This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University]On: 02 November 2014, At: 05:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy & PracticePublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caie20

Students' Perceptions of LiteracyAssessmentKaren B. Moni , Christina E. van Kraayenoord & CarolynD. BakerPublished online: 09 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Karen B. Moni , Christina E. van Kraayenoord & Carolyn D. Baker(2002) Students' Perceptions of Literacy Assessment, Assessment in Education: Principles,Policy & Practice, 9:3, 319-342, DOI: 10.1080/0969594022000027654

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594022000027654

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylorand Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caie20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0969594022000027654

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594022000027654

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessment in Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2002

Students’ Perceptions of LiteracyAssessmentKAREN B. MONI, CHRISTINA E. VAN KRAAYENOORD &CAROLYN D. BAKERFred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The School ofEducation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

ABSTRACT Students’ perceptions of literacy assessment processes and practices were inves-tigated in two year long case studies undertaken in two English classrooms in two state highschools in Queensland, Australia. A range of qualitative data techniques was used to collectinformation related to students’ previous experiences of assessment in primary school,students’ responses to the � rst and last literacy assessment task of the school year, and theirperceptions of assessment at the end of the year. The study showed that students’ attitudes,beliefs, practices and understandings about assessment varied both within and across studentgroups and differences in students’ accounts were evident both at the start and end of theschool year. The � ndings highlight the role that students play in actively constructingknowledge about literacy assessment through their prior and current experiences withassessment tasks, and in their interactions with each other.

Introduction

The study reported here is part of a larger project investigating constructions ofliteracy assessment by teachers and their students during the � rst year of highschool. Data were collected around each assessment task in subject English duringa full school year in two Queensland high school classrooms. In this paper wespeci� cally highlight students’ understandings of literacy and literacy assessment atthe start of the year by exploring their previous experiences of assessment in primaryschool and their responses to the � rst assessment task of the school year. In thesecond part of the paper we focus on students’ perceptions of the last task under-taken in English in that year and consider their perceptions of assessment at the endof the year.

Theoretical Framework

There is a considerable body of research on how knowledge is socially constructedin classrooms among teachers and students, and student-peers during formal lessons(Collins & Green, 1990; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Green & Dixon, 1993; Mercer,

ISSN 0969-594X print; ISSN 1465-329X online/02/030319-24 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0969594022000027654

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

320 K. B. Moni et al.

1995; Nuthall, 1997). Studies across a range of subject areas and at different levelsof schooling have found that knowledge, and particularly what comes to ‘count’ asclassroom knowledge is shaped by daily interactions among teachers and students(Prentiss, 1995).

Investigations of talk in classrooms in the area of literacy have shown that literacyis constructed through teacher-student and student-student interactions aroundtexts (Green & Meyer, 1991; Heap, 1995; Myers, 1992; Prentiss, 1995; Talty,1995). In particular, Baker (1992), and Baker and Freebody (1989) revealed howinteractions around texts constructed knowledge about how to refer to, respond to,and interpret storybooks. McCarthey (1994) showed how student writers in aprimary school setting learned about appropriate topics and ways of writing throughthe writing conferences held with their teacher. In these studies, teachers have beenidenti� ed as mediators, activators and interpreters of texts and the students as activeparticipants in the construction of classroom knowledge.

Edwards and Westgate (1987), however, claimed that students were positioned asreceivers of knowledge whose participation was con� ned to what was de� ned by theteacher as appropriate or relevant. Previous research into students’ participation inliteracy assessment has tended to support Edwards and Westgate’s (1987) view,indicating that students play a passive role in literacy assessment activities (Valencia,1990; Graue, 1993). Recent shifts to authentic classroom-based models of assess-ment which encourage learning-integrated assessment, collaborative assessmentactivities and self-assessment (Archbald, 1991, Harrison et al., 1998; Kleinsasser,1995) suggest that students should play a more active role in constructing assess-ment.

Related to this view has been the call to investigate students’ perceptions ofassessment processes and in this regard there is a small, growing body of research.Much of this research has been undertaken in the USA and has focused on theimpact of standardised testing on students. One of the major � ndings from thisresearch is that standardised tests affect what students learn, how students learn, andat what level they learn (Madaus, 1991). Madaus (1991) argued that successfulperformance on standardised tests comes to be regarded by students as the mainobjective in education and that students develop learning strategies whose solepurpose is to improve test performance.

The second � nding from the literature is that traditional assessment practices suchas standardised testing and the subsequent reporting of grades derived from thesetests, may have negative and long-term effects on students’ attitudes and subsequentperformance (Paris et al., 1991; Paris et al., 1992; Roth & Paris, 1991). McAuliffe(1993) for example, described the negative reactions of a group of ‘at risk’ studentsto a series of practice tests taken in readiness for formal standardised tests. Studentswere upset with the notion that the test-maker held the ‘right’ answers and werereluctant to complete the tests (McAuliffe, 1993). The author concluded that thetests in which the students engaged required lower levels of comprehension and lesssynthesis of ideas than their regular classroom activities and moved these studentsaway from the empowered positions in relation to literacy that they had developed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Students’ Perceptions of Literacy Assessment 321

The author suggested that for these students the value of information from standard-ised testing would be questionable.

Research, including that of McAuliffe (1993), described above, has shown thatstudents respond affectively to tests and that these reactions are often accompaniedby responses such as withholding participation. The research has also shown thatbeyond the actual testing situations students also react emotionally and cognitivelyto the feedback they get from teachers. For example, Sperling and Freedman (1987)investigated one ninth-grade student’s understandings of her teacher’s writtencomments on her assignments over a seven-week period. They found that under-standing the teacher’s comments involved the student in complex problem solving.If the student wanted to achieve a good grade for her work she was required, in someinstances, to accept the authority of the teacher even when the teacher’s values wereclearly different from her own. This study also revealed that the student persistentlymisunderstood the teacher’s values even as she engaged with his interpretation ofher work.

Morine-Dershimer’s study (1982) of interactions in � ve third and fourth gradeprimary classrooms focused on students’ perceptions of praise. She found thatstudents were able to differentiate three main purposes for positive oral feedback.First, over half of the 165 students believed they were praised when their answers toquestions were right or good. Second, praise had an instructional function, servingto encourage students to learn; and third, praise was a way of supporting studentswho participated in discussions. The author concluded that students perceived andused praise in complex ways. First, praise acted to reinforce the learning andparticipatory behaviours of the recipients, encouraging them to participate furtherand consequently receive more praise. Second, praise was perceived to be instruc-tional by students who had low status in the classroom. These students did notparticipate as often, receiving less praise. In turn, their low status was reinforced. Ina study of primary teachers and their students’ understanding of literacy assessmentinteractions in two Year 5 classrooms, Af� erbach and Moni (1995) found thatteachers and their students developed a similar range of understandings about themeaning of ‘OK’ as used in oral feedback. However, these authors reported that in19% of the 43 instances of ‘OK’ analysed, student interpretations were not the sameas those of their teachers. The � ndings of these studies indicate that studentsunderstand feedback in different ways, and that misinterpretations of the teacher’sintentions occur in oral feedback as well as in written feedback.

Another form of assessment information which students obtain from their teach-ers is grades. Grades can comprise a letter grade (A to E), a number (for example,percentages), or a rating (very high achievement). For many students, gradesrepresent the only formal feedback they receive from teachers about the quality oftheir work and about their progress in a given subject. Consequently students’perceptions of grading have been of interest to researchers. Evans and Engelberg(1988) used a questionnaire to survey 304 students in six year levels (Years 4 to 11)about their attitudes, understandings and attributions regarding grades. They re-ported that whereas primary school children had positive attitudes towards grades,older students reported more dissatisfaction and cynicism related to grading prac-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


tices. While older students had a better overall understanding of grading systemsthan younger students, their understanding of complexities such as grade pointaveraging and weighted grading was limited. Younger and lower achieving studentsattributed good grades to external factors such as teacher and task factors, whileolder and higher achieving students attributed good grades more to their own effort.

Much of the previous research on students’ perceptions of literacy assessmentboth in Australia and overseas has been conducted in primary schools or in thesenior years of high school (Af� erbach & Moni, 1995; Evans & Engelberg, 1988;McAuliffe, 1993; Morine-Dershimer, 1982; Van Kraayenoord & Moni, 1997).These studies found students’ attitudes towards assessment affected their partici-pation in assessment, and the value they placed on assessment methods and tasks.Second, students developed a range of understandings about teachers’ written andoral feedback which were not always congruent with the teachers’ intentions; andthird, as students progress through school, many became both increasingly negativeabout assessment and concerned about the assessment process. The informationderived from these studies about how students construct assessment, their percep-tions of their roles in assessment and how these perceptions affect their attitudes andpractices related to assessment suggests that further examination of students’ per-ceptions of assessment, speci� cally in the lower grades of high school is needed.

In the part of the study reported in this article the following research questionsrelating to Year 8 students’ perceptions of literacy assessment in English during oneschool year were investigated:

1. What do Year 8 students think, feel and value about literacy assessment whenthey start Year 8?

2. Are students’ thoughts, feelings and values when they enter Year 8 the same ordifferent from each other?

3. As students progress through Year 8 do students’ thoughts, feelings and valueschange and are they the same or different from each other?

Method

Year-long case studies were undertaken in two classrooms in two schools in a largecity on the east coast of Queensland. Participants in the study were two Year 8English teachers and three mixed-gender friendship groups in each of the twoclassrooms. In both classrooms each teacher selected a student, one for each of thethree groups needed. Then these students in turn selected three peers, whichresulted in a mix of males and females across the student groups. Friendship groupswere chosen to provide insight into the perceptions of sub-groups of students in theclassroom, to assist in making students comfortable in discussion situations, and tofacilitate sharing of previous and current experiences.

The groups from School 1 have been called the Pragmatists, the Enthusiasts, andthe Gang. In School 2, the groups have been called the Quiet Achievers, the Friends,and the Rebels [1]. Group names were chosen after careful deliberation and analysisof 93 lesson observations in School 1 and 134 in School 2. These names, which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


re� ect the students’ use of language and their descriptions of themselves and theirbehaviours, were selected to capture key elements of the group members’ interac-tions with each other, their responses to classroom activities, and their relationshipwith the teacher and � rst author.

A range of qualitative approaches was used to collect systematically data relatedto literacy assessment activities from multiple sources, numerous times throughoutone school year. The main corpus of data drawn on in this article comprisesverbatim transcripts developed from audiotaped interviews (n 5 27 for School 1, andn 5 27 for School 2) conducted with the same three groups of students from eachclassroom at the start and end of the school year. The protocol for each semi-struc-tured interview was developed weekly and was formulated using queries relating toobservations of classroom activities, the research questions and topics emergingfrom previous discussions (see Appendix A). These interviews enabled the � rstauthor to clarify issues and to develop an understanding of what took place from theperspectives of the students. Some interviews also included discussions of shortexcerpts of literacy assessment events videotaped during classroom activities. Theseshort excerpts were discussed in order to develop an understanding of the eventsfrom the students’ perspectives. At School 1, on 7 occasions, groups were alsocombined for the interviews when more than two students were absent.

All of the interviews were audiotaped. After every interview the audiotape wasnumbered, indexed and labelled with a brief summary of the focus of the interview.Each tape was transcribed using simpli� ed transcription symbols described inSilverman (1993, p. 118). The transcripts developed from these interviews wereanalysed using qualitative analysis techniques. These involved systematic and recur-ring questioning and analysis in clearly de� ned stages comprising open, axial andselective coding (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researchquestions were the starting point for these data analysis procedures.

In the open coding stage, the interview transcripts were read twice, the � rst timeto get a feel for the data. During the second reading ideas from the data, recurringthemes, and unique features of the data were noted. These suggestions werecombined with the research questions to form units of data and concepts emergingfrom the transcripts (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Goetz & Le Compte, 1984; Lincoln& Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988; Patton, 1990). Axial coding was used to link unitsof data identi� ed in the transcripts in order to develop themes from the descriptionsand students’ accounts of assessment in the two classrooms in the study. In theselective coding stage the data was re-read in order to identify appropriate ways ofreporting the � ndings. For the purposes of this article, a decision was made topresent � ndings chronologically, discussing � rst the students’ prior experiences ofassessment, then describing students’ perceptions of the � rst and the last assessmenttask in the school year for each classroom ending with the students’ review of theyear in assessment.

In the results section themes evident in the students’ talk and which revealed theirconstructions of literacy assessment are presented. The main themes are illustratedwith excerpts from the transcripts. The group accounts of literacy assessment aretraced chronologically, and in sections corresponding to naturally occurring phases

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


in the Australian school year. The � rst section: Primary school experiences of literacyassessment describes the students’ experiences of literacy assessment in primaryschool, and their expectations for assessment in high school. The second section,February to March: The � rst term and the � rst assessment task describes the students’responses to the � rst assessment task and how their responses changed as theyworked though the � rst task. The short section: September to December: A settledperspective reveals the students’ perceptions of learning nothing new about assess-ment, while the End of year review: Re� ections and advice presents students’ � nalre� ections on their learning for the year and their advice to incoming Year 8students about how to do well in literacy assessment tasks.

Results

Primary School Experiences of Literacy Assessment

The groups of students in both schools described their literacy assessment experi-ences in Year 7. In School 1, the Pragmatists described tests about language andspelling. Tim recalled taking part in externally administered Maths and Englishcompetitions, while Alison commented about teachers marking her work that: ‘Itlooked like it had been in a dog’s dish because there was red pen all over it’(Pragmatists). Dawn recalled that their primary school teachers looked for ‘neatnessand punctuation and normally capital letters and everything and tense’, ‘attitude’and ‘effort’. The Enthusiasts added that the teacher took their work in every timethey did language activities, and that they had to complete special projects for theirreport cards.

In School 2, the Quiet Achievers listed spelling, punctuation, expression andvocabulary as the focus of assessment. Experiences of literacy assessment in thisgroup ranged from tests, stories, research projects and poetry activities. Like Alisonfrom the Pragmatists, these students joked about getting their work back covered inred marks:

Si A lot of mine was changed with crosses[laughter]

Su Yeah, it was the same for mineSi It was nearly all!

(Quiet Achievers)

The Rebels’ account focused on projects, identifying written and oral assessmentscomprising different genres:

B We had tests and projects 5

K 5 In grade six we did umm, I think we did four oral assignments and lastyear we only did one, Oh, no we did two of them—two I think. But I don’t likethem because it’s really embarrassing

S We had umm—we had to do—usually it was a news item and a project or a tripor (1.00) and what was the other thing—there was something else that we had tothat involved writing and stuff.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


K And last year we did this umm famous Australian and I mean we had to doresearch and that and then at the end of the year—at the end of the year weumm, did this thing on a country. You had to pick a country and do a like writestuff about it.

I And how about you, Steven?S We just did a few like a thousand word essays and stuff like that

(Rebels)

The Rebels were critical of how their primary teachers marked their work. Adamsaid:

A What we—ours used to do if umm, you did one and you didn’t put in much effortbut you tried, he’d give you a low mark but then if you’d put in a heap of effortinto one, he would give you an even lower mark in the one before, like if—cos it’sreally stupid the way he’d do it.

(Rebels)

In the Friends, Jeremy’s experiences of how his teacher assessed work contrastedto those of the other three members. Jeremy remembered that:

J Umm, probably the way you use, like the words, he didn’t, he cared about thepresentation but he really didn’t care about spelling mistakes because he said youcould � x those up, he just wanted to look at how you put it and how you used thewords.

(Friends)

The girls in this group, however, listed presentation, spelling, originality, andcontent as important.

The Whys and Hows of Assessment in High School

In the initial interview the students were asked what assessment was for in highschool, how information would be used, and how their teachers would mark theirwork. The Enthusiasts and the Gang felt that the main use of assessment infor-mation was for report cards, although the Enthusiasts also suggested that learningabout the students was important too. The Pragmatists looked further ahead andstated that as well as being useful for helping them to improve the next task, theinformation was important for job references. In School 2, the Friends gave tworesponses. First they wanted to use the information to improve their work, andsecond the teacher used assessment information to monitor their performance.

The groups also had diverse ideas about how teachers assessed their work. Forexample, the Gang listed correct spelling, punctuation, personality, and how theywrote as things their teacher would look for, while the Pragmatists’ list focused onneatness, ‘visuals’ (including illustrations), and attitudes. In School 2, the Rebelsdescribed similar criteria, but for this group, the teacher’s personal feelings wereimportant:

I When your teacher takes your work in on Friday, how’s she going to mark it?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


K She’ll probably 5

B 5 Neatness, accuracyA I don’t know, I don’t even know if I might not be here on Friday!B SpellingS How you’re good at your wordsK If she likes you or notA Yeah! [laughs]B Yeah, I think that plays a major part in it, I think if a teacher doesn’t like you

then your marks go down(Rebels)

In School 1 the � rst assessment task involved the compilation of a personalidentity portrait comprising six photos and a written photo-essay. In School 2, the� rst task was the writing of an autobiography. Both of these assessment tasks wereaccompanied by detailed criterion-referenced task sheets which are common in highschool English teaching in Queensland (see Appendices B and C for an example ofa task sheet used in School 1 during the year).

February to March: the � rst term and the � rst assessment task

In School 1, the students were given the following task:

TASK: You are to produce a collated autobiography of your life so far. Yourcollation should include a written version of your life (about 300 words); avisual representation of parts of your life (photos, drawings, family tree etc),and any other small memorabilia which represent important times in your life.

Although the reactions of the students in School 1 to this � rst assessment taskvaried generally there was initial panic. Tim, for example said: ‘First of all I thought“assessment ugh [vomit sounds]” but I read it and I came out and I found out—ah,this is not too bad, I can do this’ (Pragmatists). The Enthusiasts felt very stronglythat assessment was starting too soon:

I What’s the � rst reaction to getting the task sheet that assignment sheet?E We’re starting 5

C 5 Too earlyE No, we’re startingI Starting? You were happy to think that you were starting?E YeahI You were or are you just saying that?E Nooo, it—it I hated the thought of starting somethingI Oh right and Carl you � gured that it was too earlyC YeahM Yeah they should have it aboutC [We haven’t even been hereM [Yeah in term two or term three or something

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The students in School 2, received the following instructions for completing thetask on their task sheet:

TASK: This assessment is the culmination of the introductory Year 8 Unit, aPersonal Pro� le. You are required to produce six photographs that you havespeci� cally composed, which reveal something about your identity, who youare as a person. You must then write approximately 50 to 100 words to go witheach photo as well as an overall introduction to the project. The photoessayshould be both an exploration and an explanation of your life, interests,personality and people who are important to you. Your written responses willexplain how and why you composed the photos and what each one revealsabout you. The audience will be other students in the class and some will bedisplayed for parents.

In School 2, some students did not understand initially that they had been givenan assessment task. For example, Neil from the Quiet Achievers said: ‘I thought wejust had to read it and just take notes and I thought “Oh no, not a test” ’ (QuietAchievers).

Task sheets were also new for students in the � rst assessment task. These werewritten texts generated speci� cally for assessment purposes and comprised instruc-tions for completing tasks, plus formal criteria with statements of standards forachievement. Teachers’ written comments about the � nal product were added to thetask sheets after students’ assignments had been marked.

The groups of students in both schools had limited previous experience of tasksheets and criteria. The following example from the Quiet Achievers of theirprevious experiences with task sheets and criteria is typical of those from all groups:

I So you’re used to getting things (holds up task sheet) with instructions that tellyou exactly what to do?

All No, noSi She’d just tell usI She’d just tell you and how many of you got like this at the back — like a list

of different standards that you had toSi Well, maybe once or twice I think but we don’t usually get stuff like this 5

Su 5 We didn’t get stuff set out like thatI You didn’t get the two columns like this with understanding of content or

control of text or anything like that?Su No, she’d just write something [and that — like good spelling andSi [yeah, she puts it on the board or sometimesI What do you mean she put it on the board?Si She tells us — she puts a dot and then she writes ‘assignment due in’ whatever

and then she puts umm 5

Su 5 what she expects

One student in the Pragmatists had previous experience with task sheets, but forthe others, task sheets were new:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


A When I � rst saw that I didn’t realise what it was aboutD Yeah, I hadn’t a clue, no idea what it wasI So what do you understand now about it?R [This likeA [I understand, it just tells you what you get A, B, C, D or whatever

The groups demonstrated their understanding of the purpose of their � rst tasksheet as instructions or guidelines they had to follow:

M It’s what you have to doB [It’s what you have to do to get a good mark, I supposeC [Well, guidelines

(Enthusiasts)

Working Through the First Assessment Task

The � rst task for both classes was a piece of autobiographical writing. As theyworked through this task towards the � nal product they began to form perceptionsof literacy assessment in high school. The main theme to emerge from the students’constructions of the � rst task was that it was easy. The students gave several reasonsfor this. First, the task was easy because they were familiar with the genre fromprimary school. For example, Beth said ‘Well I thought it was pretty easy becausewe had—well in my class any way we did an autobiography last year’ (Enthusiasts).Members of the Gang had also completed autobiographies in primary school:

Z Yeah, I did a ‘my life’ thingo last year and you had to put photos and big captionson it for all the years that you were alive

I Oh right so this was a bit repetitive for you was it?J Yeah we done a project on our autobiography on a big chart

A second reason cited for the task being easy was that they were writing aboutthemselves. Steven, for example said: ‘Ahh, well I think it’s going to be easy becauseI’m used to all that stuff, writing about yourself and stuff like that’ (Rebels). Emmacommented it was easy because ‘you know that it’s your life and you know whatyou’re going to write’ (Enthusiasts).

Third, the task was easy because it was fun to do. Belinda from the Friendscommented ‘Like when I � rst got it I thought like well, it’s too soon, we’re still inGrade 8. But when I read it, it sounds like fun. I like taking photos and stuff’, andTherese added: ‘It seemed so interesting like, like you know, they hardly ever lookat your pictures and so it seemed really different’ (Friends).

Some students, however, had mixed feelings about the invasion of privacy in-volved in writing an autobiography. Bernie, (Rebels) for example said:

B It’s—it’s—it’s I reckon it’s going to be pretty easy but I don’t like what I—I don’tlike what we’re doing sort of thing because I � nd that it’s sort of—like it’s tryingto � nd out more about you but like I don’t really like to tell everybody about whatI like doing and stuff, it’s really personal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Susan (Quiet Achievers) disliked being told what to write about by her teacher,and she wanted more freedom to choose what she included in her autobiography.

At the start of the school year few of the students felt that they had someunderstanding of how and why they would be assessed in high school. However, asthey worked through the � rst task, the changes in their perceptions of assessmentfrom initial apprehension to their emerging categorisations of literacy assessment aseasy, reveal how quickly these students developed their versions of literacy assess-ment. At the end of the � rst term, although the groups in both classes had partiallycompleted only one assessment cycle, some groups had already made decisionsregarding assessment.

Emerging Constructions of Literacy Assessment

In School 2, two groups in particular, the Friends and the Rebels, constructeddifferent versions of literacy assessment at the end of the � rst term. The Friendswere positive about their � rst assessment experience. In particular they were enthu-siastic about the task sheets and the detailed explanations from their teacher:

I What have you learned about what assessment in English is like in high school?B It’s like—it’s not like really demanding but it’s quite a lot more than primary

school, the work that you had to put into it and stuff like that.J But I think it’s good that umm that in primary school like once they’d just hand

it you, they told you about something that you had to do and didn’t tell you whatthey expected of you whereas in high school our teacher wrote down the stuffthat we needed to do which I thought was good

B And she also—I liked how they did this cos it shows you moreI You mean the criteria sheet?B Because like you never had them last year either so it gives you a better—more

understanding of what you did and what you didn’t do

The Rebels, revealed their resistance to their � rst assessment experiences in termsof the encroachment on their social life:

K You’ve got to keep to them [deadlines] and you need to make more timeB And there’s no way I’m giving up my free time, not all of itK I’m not, I’m not not going to go to the dances and that, likeA You need your social life, it’s hard to sit in every night and just do everythingK Like I went to [another school] on Friday night—and you’ve got to watch TV.S I think it’s just boring

During the second term of the school year, students completed their � rst oral taskand in both schools started and � nished three more assessment tasks. In School 1,these were a combination of oral and written tasks, while in School 2 all of the taskswere written. Their accounts of these tasks revealed that the students retained theirinitial impressions of assessment and developed their knowledge of aspects ofassessment related to the task sheet which they continued to construct as the singlemost important new aspect of assessment in high school. Perceptions about what

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


made tasks easy or dif� cult that were evident in their account of the � rst task, werealso present in their accounts of assessment tasks in the second term, suggesting thatthese students’ � rst impressions were strengthened by their experiences. However,there was also evidence the students were continuing to develop different percep-tions of the assessment programme.

In the 11 weeks of the third term, students in School 1 completed one written taskand one task focusing on listening skills. In School 2, the students completed oneoral and written task based on a video production unit, and two other tasks, one oraland one written. In this term, the students constructed assessment as both familiarand changing. The content and format of assessment remained the same as inSemester 1. However, there was an increasing focus in the students’ talk onprocedures, deadlines, and following the criteria on the task sheet. A more detailedaccount of students’ perceptions of assessment during Terms 2 and 3 is beyond thescope of this article and can be found in Moni (1999).

The next section presents � ndings related to students’ perceptions of the assess-ment tasks they undertook in Term 4, and their perceptions of assessment at the endof the school year.

September to December: a settled perspective

During the last term of the school year—Term 4, the students undertook severalassignments. In School 1 students completed one oral and one written task. Datacollection focused on the written task which comprised an anthology of collected,published and self-composed poems. In School 2, the students completed a writtenreport on a video they had produced in groups to promote the school, and a writtenbiography of someone they considered to be a hero. In contrast to students’comments at the beginning of the year, the main theme to emerge from theinterviews about these tasks was the familiarity of the assessment process. Two ofthe three groups in School 2 claimed to have learned nothing new about assessmentthrough doing the assignments set for this term. The Quiet Achievers, for example,said they had answered the interview questions before and their answers this timewould be the same, while the Friends could not identify anything they had learned.All of the groups in School 2 had had experience of biographies in primary school,so they found little that was challenging in writing another biography about a hero.

School 1 students described the poetry anthology as easy because of their previousexperiences of writing poetry in primary school. Tim said he liked writing poems,while for Jon, this assignment was the best he had done during the year (Gang).However, as in the � rst term, unfamiliar aspects of the task, in this instance writinga response to each of the poems, were challenging:

I What about the response bit, have you done that before?All NoE I still haven’t done mineI So how do you feel about having that extra bit?R Oh it’s all right

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


B Oh it’s going to be pretty hardE It’s all right but it’ll be hard to—to like knowing thoughts about it, you know

(Enthusiasts)

The Rebels’ account of their learning re� ected common themes in their interviewsover the year of a personal vendetta against them by their teacher, and theirresistance to listening to long explanations about the tasks:

I So what have you learned about assessment?A Yeah she marks people that she likes really good and people that try — we don’t

get good marksK [MmmB [she doesn’t take any notice ofA [YeahK In English she loves talking, she loves the sound of her own voice like and 5

B 5 That’sK Like it’ll [take her at least a lesson to explain to youC [and it’s like she has to explain everything

(Rebels)

In the interviews up to this point, all of the students had referred to the task sheetas the authority for providing instructions for the work. However, at the start ofTerm 4, the Rebels (School 2) used the criteria sheet to contest the teacher’s actionsin the classroom. The context for their complaint was that planning the written partsof the video unit was dif� cult and they had not had enough time to complete thereport:

B I don’t think—I think a bit of planning should be involved but not a whole heapbecause what if something goes wrong like what happened with us [a wholechange of plan], we had to change

A YeahB And if—but if you read the criteria sheet—have you got the criteria sheet there for

us?I Yes I have—there you goB It says you must � nish your � lming before you start your report and we hadn’t

done our � lming and she made me do it.K Yeah and it had to beB And I had to rush it!K The other people that � nished at the start, they got longer to do their video report

In the above excerpt, Bernie uses the authority she understands to be inherent inthe task sheet to support her argument that the students should have been givenmore time to complete the task. In this account, Bernie places the authority of thetask sheet above the authority of the classroom teacher, positioning the teacher aswell as the students as having to follow the requirements written on the task sheet.

The students’ perceptions that there was nothing new in assessment during this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


term (even though the genres and � nal products were all different) suggests that theyfelt that they understood the assessment process.

End of Year Review: re� ections and advice

The last interview of the year for each group provided an opportunity for thestudents to re� ect on their experiences of literacy assessment during the year, tothink about what they had learned, and to pass on advice to incoming Year 8students.

Differences in Assessment Between Primary and High School

The � rst major area of review was the groups’ perceptions of the similarities anddifferences between literacy assessment in primary and high school. Across thegroups in both schools, the students indicated that assessment was similar in termsof being focused on writing. For some students within the groups assessment wasthe same as primary school. Robert, for example said: ‘For me it’s been basically thesame as primary, like we did—but we didn’t do as much’ (Pragmatists), and Timechoed the sentiment: ‘It’s only in a few cases it’s been different’ (Gang).

In their accounts of assessment in high school, the groups identi� ed ways in whichassessment was different from primary school. These included the use of assign-ments as the focus of assessment, the greater challenges posed by the tasks them-selves—for example, writing a response to poems, and different ways of setting outtheir � nal product.

The students also identi� ed some of the differences they liked and disliked aboutassessment in high school. The Enthusiasts appreciated the more detailed instruc-tions they received about each task. However, for Tim this single explanation wasnot enough: ‘Well, when we were in the primary school, they’d sort of repeat it [theexplanation] a few times like we—we wouldn’t get it, but now they only say it onceand if you didn’t do it—too bad’ (Gang).

The Quiet Achievers commented on the detailed explanations they were given:‘English here, they tell you exactly what you’ve got to do, in primary school theyused to tell you once and once only’ (Quiet Achievers). For the Rebels, however,assessment was more boring than in primary school, and there was less fun.Procedures such as getting an extension were also identi� ed as different by thisgroup. The Friends offered the timetabling of English as new, but could not identifyany other differences.

Perceptions of Assessment and the Assessment Programme

When the students were asked by the � rst author what they had learned aboutassessment in high school, one common theme appeared in all of their talk. This wasthe frequency of assessment and tied to this the amount of assessment they wererequired to do. The following excerpt from the Quiet Achievers illustrates thesentiments expressed by all of the groups in School 2:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Si You get lots of assignmentsJ Yeah, there’s just too muchI There’s too much?Su Yeah like in the � rst term in the � rst part she gave us like, you know, like one and

then there was a break but now it’s like two at a time and no breaks or anythingI OK, anything else?Si Like we got our—like we just had our—we had like our biography, then she told

us there was a test on the letterSu [And she gave that to us straight awayJ [And now there’s a speechSi And then she gave us this one that we’ve got nowI So now you’ve got three lotsSu And they’re all about the same thingSi And we’ve had similar assignments

The Enthusiasts’ comments revealed that the volume of work, the frequency ofassessment, and organising themselves for assessment were also important to thestudents in School 1:

I What do you think you’ve learned about assessment in your classroom?B You get lots of themM Heaps!C Every four weeks!I Yeah? Is that about 5B 5 And you get like a longer time than you did in primary school to do itI OK, anything else?E And you’ve got like—it isn’t just like in primary school like you only had one

subject like two or three subjects but now you’ve got like twelve and you’ve gotto like do assignments for every one when you’ve got them and it’s a bit hard tokeep up with.

The Gang’s account also focused on the frequency of assessment. However, whenthe same question was posed to the Pragmatists, only one of the students, Robert,could identify something he had learned about assessment in high school saying‘Umm, it tells you how many words it has to be exactly around—in primary schoolit could be as many as you want’ (Pragmatists).

The Task Sheet

One aspect of assessment that the students had identi� ed as new at the beginning ofthe year, was the use of task sheets. In this end of year review, the � rst author askedthe groups to summarise what the task sheets were for, and to explain some of theterminology on the task sheets. For the Pragmatists and the Enthusiasts, the mainpurposes were to explain the task and ‘if you want to know how good you are doing,they just tell you what mark you’re going to get’ (Pragmatists). Members of theGang were less sure of their purposes as the following extract shows:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


I OK so what would you tell them about what task sheets are for?Z Unnh?J I dunnoT I don’t know, I haven’t handed one in yetJ In case you get lost and you need some helpTH Yeah just follow what you’re supposed to be doing

The Quiet Achievers and Friends constructed the task sheet as helping thembecause they explained what to do and how to get good marks. The Rebels,however, maintained that the task sheet was for the teacher—to help her explaineach task:

I What would you tell them about what task sheets are for?B So she can rabble off about themK She [tells us likeA [She knows I don’t listen 5

K 5 what the A means and the B means every single time that she reads the tasksheet

B And—[they’re basically the sameK [She tells about it in boring wordsB Like the task—it’s basically the same as for every other task

In this account the students position the teacher as mediating the task sheet andthemselves as not needing this mediation.

Advice to Incoming Year 8 Students

The advice that the groups offered to incoming students about literacy assessmentincluded that they needed to know that assessment was hard, that there was a lot ofit, and that they needed to spend time on it. Each group had different advice forstudents coming in to Year 8 about how to get good marks in assessment. ThePragmatists, for example, said that students needed to work hard, concentrate,complete the tasks and, in Robert’s words: ‘Be a suck up to the teacher!’ (Pragma-tists). The Enthusiasts were more concerned to advise new students that the taskswere easy, but the notion of working hard was raised by Emma: ‘It’s pretty easy butyou gotta like put your head down and work for it’ (Enthusiasts). The Gang’s advicefocused on being organised: ‘Follow instructions, do your work and don’t be noisy’(Zac—Gang). The Friends focused on following the task sheet while the QuietAchievers said:

J ListenM Follow the task sheetsI Mhmm and listen, any other ideas? [5.00]OKSu Do the work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


I Do the workSi Umm, umm revise at night and stuff—that kind of thing

The Rebels were more cynical in their advice about how to get good marks,continuing their stance against the teacher and assessment evident throughout theyear. In their accounts, getting good marks involved exhibiting appropriate be-haviours and looking good rather than working hard at literacy skills:

B Be ummS A goody two shoes and stuff like that!B YeahK Suck up!B No especially the presentationK Be friends with Uma [a student who achieved high grades]I Well no, if we’re talking about incoming students now, KallieB Make sure your presentation is good. That’s basically all

Although the advice the groups gave was couched in different ways, the centraltheme that emerges is one of compliance which in their terms meant doing the work.All of the groups’ comments were focused on demonstrating appropriate behaviour(doing the work) and doing what the teacher required. Only one student in any ofthe groups spoke of language in accounting for how to get good marks saying: ‘ummthe structure of the theme and the sentences and punctuation, there’s spelling andhow they understand it—nearly everything’ (Dawn—Pragmatists).

Discussion

The study has considered students’ perceptions of literacy assessment across their� rst year in high school. This study found that students started high school withdifferent experiences of assessment in primary school and very little knowledge ofwhat to expect in literacy assessment in high school. There were different accountsof assessment among the groups of students in each school both at the start and theend of the school year. There were differences in their approach to assessment, howthey felt about assessment and what they understood about assessment. Further,their accounts changed with the nature of each task. During the year, some of thestudents’ initial impressions of the content and format of assessment remained thesame, while their attitudes towards assessment changed, becoming increasinglyinstitutionalised and negative. These � ndings are discussed in this section. Inaddition, some implications for practice are suggested.

The different backgrounds and experiences that individual students brought tohigh schools affected their understanding of literacy assessment practices. For manystudents, Year 8 was a revision of what they had done in primary school and thetasks were familiar. Such students began the year with con� dence and maintainedthat con� dence as the year progressed. Some researchers have argued that studentsneed continuity in curriculum in order to make the � rst year at high school a positive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


experience and to maintain motivation to learn (Towler & Broadfoot, 1992). Thisstudy has revealed that familiarity with genres and topics has a positive effect onstudents’ con� dence in doing well in high school. Conversely, when students arefaced with unfamiliar tasks, they demonstrate less con� dence and more dislike forliteracy assessment.

These � ndings support previous research which has suggested that students’attitudes towards assessment affected their participation in assessment, and thevalue they place on assessment methods and tasks (McAuliffe, 1993). A range ofin� uences impacted on these students’ different responses to literacy assessment inhigh school. These in� uences included their previous experiences of assessment, andtheir con� dence in their own ability as well as their familiarity with the type ofassessment tasks they were required to undertake. For example, although studentswere initially wary, and even surprised by the � rst assessment task, as they workedthrough it they constructed the task as ‘easy’ based on their experience with thesame genres in primary school, and their con� dence in being experts about theirown lives. This � nding suggests that the � rst tasks set in high school are veryimportant in terms of developing students’ con� dence in their ability to do well inhigh school English. Such tasks should be carefully designed and selected both todraw on students’ primary school experiences and to introduce them to high schoolassessment practices.

Previous research (Af� erbach & Moni, 1995; Morine-Dershimer, 1982; Sperling& Freedman, 1987) has suggested that students developed a range of understand-ings about literacy assessment practices in these classrooms. Similarly in this studya variety of understandings was evident. It was clear, for example, even at the startof the year that groups of students, such as the Rebels, were developing strongly heldviews about the nature of assessment and the negative impact it had on their lives.In addition, students had different understandings of the task sheet ranging fromconstructing it as a set of instructions, a grading rubric, and not having anyunderstanding about the role of the task sheet at all.

At the end of the year the students felt that they understood the assessmentprocess. This was manifested by their perception that assessment was alwaysaccompanied by a task sheet and an explanation by the teacher of task requirements.However, it was also evident in data collected about the last assignments of theschool year that their understandings about some aspects of assessment remaineddiverse. For example, some of the students continued to assert that assessment wasfamiliar when they had prior experience of the genre, and challenging when thegenre was new. Although some students found the assessment task enjoyable, thosestudents, who were resistant to assessment at the start of the year continued toconstruct assessment as something the teacher did to them. The Rebels, forexample, established and maintained a coherent and consistent account about thesubjectivity of their teacher’s assessment.

These � ndings imply that teachers should not expect all students to have and todevelop the same understandings about literacy assessment during any year and itcannot be assumed that there is some kind of linear growth to the students’understandings about assessment. Developing more congruent understandings of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


literacy assessment in Year 8 students may necessitate explicitly teaching aboutthe nature and purposes of assessment, making links between tasks explicit, anddrawing on their expertise in assessment developed during their primary schoolexperience.

As students progress through school, previous research has suggested that there isthe possibility that they may become both increasingly negative about assessmentand concerned about the assessment process (Paris et al., 1991; Paris et al., 1992;Roth & Paris, 1991). For example, while the Rebels began and ended the yearresisting both the assessment tasks and the teacher’s pedagogy in assessment, othergroups such as the Friends, who began the year positively, made negative commentsat the end of the year. The implications of these � ndings are that some groups ofstudents develop ways of accepting or resisting school assessment practices at thestart of high school that may have long term effects on their school careers. As Jones(1989) pointed out, teachers who develop an understanding of these groups are ina better position to teach their students explicitly about the nature of the assessmentprogramme, and to channel resistance into developing strategies for bene� ting fromthe assessment system.

The � ndings related to students’ understandings of the task sheet indicate thatstudents often do not understand assessment routines and practices when they enterhigh school. One aspect that the students identi� ed as an important part of theassessment process, was the use of task sheets. For many of them the task sheet wasthe only new thing about assessment at the start of the year and their understandingsof the role of the task sheet were limited. At the end of the year, the Rebels used thetask sheet to contest the teacher’s version of the task and her classroom actions. Inthis way this group placed the authority of the task sheet above that of the teacher.Such responses by the Rebels indicated that they had a limited understanding ofboth the origins and the purposes of the task sheets in assessment.

These � ndings suggest that the practices surrounding task sheets and the tasksheets themselves in� uence how students make sense of literacy assessment. Itcannot be assumed that students will come to a consensus about what the task sheetsmean and therefore, teachers should pay careful attention to the format, languageand contents of each task sheet, as well as how they are used in the classroom.

Conclusion

It is evident from the � ndings of this study that it was not just the teacher whodecided what counts in literacy assessment in these classrooms. This study hasemphasised the role that students play in actively constructing knowledge aboutliteracy assessment through their prior and current experiences with assessmenttasks, and in their interactions with each other. In this study, attitudes, beliefs,practices and understandings about assessment varied both within and acrossstudent groups and differences in students’ accounts were just as evident at the endof the school year as at the start. As new literacy assessment practices evolve and areintroduced into the English classroom, failure to consider students’ perceptions andunderstandings of these practices may lead to less effective assessment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


NOTES

[1] All names are pseudonyms.[2] These were semi-structured pro formas and acted as starting point and as a guide for the

discussion. The interviews themselves may have taken other directions and included otherquestions.

REFERENCES

AFFLERBACH, P. P., & MONI, K. (1995) The intended and interpreted meanings of teachers’evaluation feedback to students during reading lessons, in: K. A. HINCHMAN, D. J. LEU &C. K. KINZER (Eds) Perspectives on Literacy Research and Practice. The 44th Yearbook of theNational Reading Conference, pp. 137–147 (Chicago, IL, The National Reading Confer-ence).

ARCHBALD, D. A. (1991) Authentic assessment: principles, practices and issues, School PsychologyQuarterly, 6 (4), pp. 279–293.

BAKER, C. D. (1992) Description and analysis in classroom talk and interaction, Journal ofClassroom Interaction, 27 (2), pp. 9–14.

BAKER, C. D. & FREEBODY, P. (1989) Talk around text: constructions of textual and teacherauthority in classroom discourse, in: S. DECASTELL, A. LUKE & C. LUKE (Eds) Language,Authority and Criticism: readings on the school textbook (London, Falmer Press).

BOGDAN, R. C. & BIKLEN, S. K. (1992) Qualitative Research for Education: an introduction to theoryand methods (2nd edn) (Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon).

COLLINS, E. & GREEN, J. L. (1990) Metaphors: the construction of a perspective, Theory intoPractice, 29 (2), pp. 71–77.

EDWARDS, D. & MERCER, N. (1987) Common Knowledge: the development of understanding in theclassroom (London, Routledge).

EDWARDS, A. D. & WESTGATE, D. P. G. (1987) Investigating Classroom Talk (London, FalmerPress).

EVANS, E. D. & ENGELBERG, R. A. (1988) Student perceptions of school grading, Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, 21 (2), pp. 45–53.

GOETZ, J. P. & LECOMPTE, M. D. (1984) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in EducationalResearch (San Diego, CA, Academic Press).

GRAUE, M. E. (1993) Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment, Educa-tional Assessment, 1 (4), pp. 283–309.

GREEN, J. L. & DIXON, C. N. (1993) Talking knowledge into being: discursive and social practicesin classrooms, Linguistics and Education, 5 (3 & 4), pp. 231–241.

GREEN, J. L. & MEYER, L. A. (1991) The embeddedness of reading in classroom life: reading asa situated process, in: C. D. BAKER & A. LUKE (Eds) Towards a Critical Sociology of ReadingPedagogy: papers of the XII world congress on reading (Amsterdam, John Benjamins).

HARRISON, C., BAILEY, M. & DEWAR, A. (1998) Responsive reading assessment: is postmodernassessment of reading possible?, in: C. HARRISON & T. SALINGER (Eds) Assessing Reading 1:theory and practice (London, Routledge).

HEAP, J. L. (1995) The status of claims in ‘Qualitative’ educational research, Curriculum Inquiry,25 (3), pp. 270–292.

JONES, A. (1989) The cultural production of classroom practice, British Journal of Sociology ofEducation, 10 (1), pp. 19–31.

KLEINSASSER, A. M. (1995) Assessment culture and national testing, The Clearing House, 68 (4),pp. 205–211.

LINCOLN, Y. S. & GUBA, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage).MADAUS, G. F. (1991) The effects of important tests on students: implications for a national

examination system, Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (3), pp. 226–231.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


MCAULIFFE, S. (1993) A study of the differences between instructional practice and test prep-aration, Journal of Reading, 36 (7), pp. 524–530.

MCCARTHEY, S. J. (1994) Authors, text, and talk: the internalization of dialogue from socialinteraction during writing, Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (3), pp. 201–230.

MERCER, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners(Clevedon, Avon, Multilingual Matters).

MERRIAM, S. B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education: a qualitative approach (San Francisco,CA, Jossey-Bass).

MONI, K. B. (1999) Constructions of Literacy Assessment in Two Year 8 English Classrooms.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

MORINE-DERSHIMER, G. (1982) Pupil perceptions of teacher praise, Elementary School Journal, 82(5), pp. 421–434.

MYERS, J. (1992) The social contexts of school and personal literacy, Reading Research Quarterly,27, pp. 296–333.

NUTHALL, G. (1997) Learning How to Learn: the social construction of knowledge acquisition inthe classroom. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning andInstruction (7th Biennial Conference), Athens, July.

PARIS, S. G., LAWTON, T. A. & TURNER, J. C. (1992) Reforming achievement testing to promotestudents’ learning, in: C. COLLINS & J. N. MANGIERI (Eds) Teaching Thinking: an agenda forthe twenty-� rst century (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).

PARIS, S. G., LAWTON, T. A., TURNER, J. C. & ROTH, J. L. (1991) A developmental perspective onstandardised achievement testing, Educational Researcher, 20 (5), pp. 12–20.

PATTON, M. P. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation Methods (2nd edn) (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage).PRENTISS, T. M. (1995) Constructing literacy practices: an analysis of student lived and perceived

experiences in high school English, Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30 (2), pp. 27–39.ROTH, J. L. & PARIS, S. G. (1991) Motivational Differences in Students’ Perceptions of Classroom

and Standardised Achievement Tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.

SILVERMAN, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction(London, Sage).

SPERLING, M. & FREEDMAN, S. W. (1987) A good girl writes like a good girl: written response tostudent writing, Written Communication, 4 (4), pp. 343–369.

STRAUSS, A. & CORBIN, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: grounded theory procedures andtechniques (Newbury Park, CA, Sage).

TALTY, F. (1995) Small talk around big books: interaction or conversationalism? The AustralianJournal of Language and Literacy, 18 (1), pp. 5–18.

TOWLER, L. & BROADFOOT, P. (1992) Self-assessment in the primary school, Educational Review,44 (2), pp. 137–151.

VALENCIA, S. (1990) A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: the whys, whats, andhows, The Reading Teacher, 43 (4), pp. 338–340.

VAN KRAAYENOORD, C. E. & MONI, K. B. (1997) Students’ voices: literacy assessment in secondaryschools, Literacy Learning: Secondary Thoughts, 5 (2), pp. 28–40.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX A

Examples of student interview pro formas used in both schools [2]

School 1: Week 12–13, 29/4–10/5/96Tell me about this piece of assessment? What do you have to do? How long are you spending onit?What stage are you at?What will you need to do to get a good mark? How do you know?How will your teacher mark you?How is this assessment like the last piece you did?How is it different?Did you do anything like this in primary school?How challenging is the assessment?What new things are you learning about assessment?If you have any problems or questions about assessment who do you ask for help?

School 2: Weeks 19–20, 10/6–21/6You have your performance poetry task sheet in front of you:-What grade did you get for your performance? What does the grade mean?Why do you think you got that grade?How could you have got a better grade?What does the written comment at the bottom of the task sheet mean?How will you use this information about your performance?When you did your poetry performance for the second time, how was it different/same?Why did your teacher give you a second go? What do you think she was trying to teach you?What new things are you learning about assessment through doing this piece of work?How are you doing in English, how do you know?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX B

School 1: Instructions for group drama assessment task, page 1 of task sheet (reduced from A4)

DRIFTON STATE HIGH SCHOOLYEAR 8 ENGLISH

Group Drama

NAME: … … … … … … … … … … … … …TEACHER: … … … … … … … … … … …

TASK 1 : In groups of 3–5 you are to select a passage from your novelwhich is suitable for dramatisation.You are to collaboratively write a script of the section you haveselected.

GENRE 1 : Drama script. This must be formally set out with a cast ofcharacters; stage directions; dialogue; and costume directions.N.B. Each group member must have his/her own copy of thegroup script.

TASK 2 : You are to perform your group drama for the class. You willneed to bring appropriate costumes and props to support yourperformance.You are to collaboratively write a script of the section you haveselected.

GENRE 2 : Dramatic performance focusing on voice production, movement,group interaction, non-verbal language.N.B. Each group member must have his/her own copy of thegroup script.

PURPOSE : To transpose prose to drama; to entertain; to narrate events; tocreate.

ROLES and Actors entertaining their peers. Writers transposing to differentRELATIONSHIPS : genre.MODE andMEDIUM : Written script; written performance.LENGTH The length of your written script will vary according to theCONSIDERATIONS : number of people in your group. As a guide you must have at

least 1–11/2 pages of written script per group member. [Mostscripts will be at least 4–6 pages in length].A group mark will be awarded to your script. However the moreASSESSMENT

NOTE important mark to you will be the individual mark for your ownperformance.

COMMENT :

DATE: Teacher: Result:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX C

School 1: Criteria and statements of standards for group drama, page 2 of task sheet (reduced from A4)

CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR ASSESSMENT

CONTEXTUALFACTORS A B C D E

1. Subject Matter You have shown a You have shown Your knowledgevery good knowledge of your of your character

—character knowledge of your selected character is limited/veryselected character and his/her part limited.

—novel details and his/her part in in the novel. Some novelthe novel. Novel Novel details are details are used.details are very used appropriately.accurately andappropriatelyused.

2. Roles and You clearly You understood You had dif� cultyRelationships understood your your role as actor keeping in

role as actor in in character, and character.—actor before an character, mostly maintained Concentration was

audience maintaining very concentration. broken.good concentration.

TEXTUALFEATURES3. Dialogue and Your dialogue was Your dialogue was Your dialogue was

Voice very effectively appropriately sometimesselected and selected and inappropriatelyadapted. Your adapted. Voice selected and

—selection and voice was very was audible adapted. Voiceadaptation expressive with showing some was audible at

—volume good volume expression times. Little—expression expression was

used.4. Non verbal You moved about Stage movement Stage movement

language the stage very was generally was stilted atnaturally. You appropriate. times. You lacked

—movement interacted freely Group interaction awareness ofand responsively was satisfactory. others. Your face

—group with all group You used facial did not alwaysinteraction members. You expression. re� ect appropriate

—facial used facial expressionsexpression expression very

well5. Use of Props, You had a very You had a suitable No/little effort at

Costumes appropriate costume. You costume. No/littlecostume. You used some props. use of props.used props‘naturally’ as partof yourperformance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:15

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Download - Students' Perceptions of Literacy Assessment

Top Related