formative assessment in elt primary

7/28/2019 Formative Assessment in ELT Primary

1/12

http://ltj.sagepub.com/Language Testing

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/026553220001700210

2000 17: 278Language TestingFrancesca Gattullo

case studyFormative assessment in ELT primary (elementary) classrooms: an Italian

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language TestingAdditional services and information for

http://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 2000Version of Record>>

by emilia barbosa on October 5, 2012ltj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.refs.htmlhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.refs.htmlhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.full.pdfhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.full.pdfhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.full.pdfhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ltj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/17/2/278http://ltj.sagepub.com/


2/12

Formative assessment in ELT primary(elementary) classrooms: an Italian

case studyFrancesca Gattullo Universita di Bologna and Universita diTrieste, Italy

I Introduction

This research into classroom assessment has been largely shaped bythe recent work in educational assessment of Torrance and Pryor(1998), in particular by their concept of the microsociology of class-room assessment and classroom learning which is defined as the studyof how assessment of young children is carried out in classrooms,and with what possible consequences for their understanding ofschooling and the development of their learning in particular subjectareas (Torrance and Pryor, 1998: 3). A pilot study had been conduc-ted over a two-year period (199798) in two primary schools in theEmilia-Romagna Region, Northern Italy.1 Four teachers, threespecialists and one generalist, were observed during their lessons fora total of about 10 hours,2 as summarized in Table 1.

They were teaching 86 pupils altogether, aged from 9 to 10 years,who had been studying English as a foreign language since the thirdgrade (8 year olds). In addition, pupil questionnaires were adminis-tered, the participating teachers were interviewed, and an analysis ofthe assessment materials used for the teaching of English as a foreignlanguage (EFL) was also undertaken.

The findings from the pilot work highlighted a number of areas ofweakness and/or of teacher concern. These related to:

1) developing more structured ways of assessing oral abilities in

pair and group work;2) the provision of feedback and of action aimed at self-repair for

individual pupils; and

Address for correspondence: Francesca Gattullo, via M. De Maria 2, 40129 Bologna, Italy;e-mail rav1905iperbole.bologna.it

1For more details on the pilot phase of this research and on the overall project, see the InterimReports presented at the Euroconferences 199799 (see Acknowledgements at the end of thisarticle). For more information, contact the Euroconferences Coordinator, Dr P. Rea-Dickins,

The Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square, Bristol, BS8IJA, UK.2An overview of the current foreign language-teaching situation in Italian primary schools

can be found in Gattullo and Pallotti (in press).

Language Testing 2000 17 (2) 278288 0265-5322(00)LT181OA 2000 Arnold

http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/http://ltj.sagepub.com/


3/12

Francesca Gattullo 279

Table 1 Overview of pilot study

Type of teacher n Hours ofobservation

Generalist, who teaches English and L1, 1 2.5history, social studiesSpecialist, who teaches English only 3 7.5

3) the development of procedures for recording individual pupilsperformance for assessment purposes.

This led to the preliminary conclusion that in the Italian primaryforeign language classroom there was a need to investigate furtherissues of:

1) formative assessment in terms of information collection, feed-back provision, and use of assessment results; and

2) the implicit and explicit presence of assessment processes ineveryday classroom interaction.

For the next phase in the research, a broad definition of classroomassessment for formative purposes was adopted as a starting point.

The following are identified as the main traits of this type of assess-ment:

it is an ongoing multi-phase process that is carried out on a dailybasis through teacherpupil interaction;

it provides feedback for immediate action; and it aims at modifying teaching activities in order to improve learn-

ing processes and results.

II Work in progress

1 Aims

The aims of the current study are defined in terms of both researcherand teacher perspectives, summarized as follows:

1) For the researcher to identify:(a) and describe how assessment is being interpreted and

implemented by EFL teachers in the final years of primaryschools (i.e., children aged 810 years);

(b) the different dimensions of formative assessment;(c) some examples of good practice of formative assessment.

2) For the teachers to have the opportunity to reflect on:



4/12

280 Formative assessment in ELT primary classrooms

(a) the difference between formative and summative assess-ment in terms of information, collection procedures, feed-back provision and use of their results;

(b) the different dimensions of formative assessment;(c) the extent and range of assessment actions in the classroom,

both implicit and explicit;(d) the possible development of improved strategies for forma-

tive classroom assessment.

The focus of this article is on the processes of formative assessmentso far identified from the data (see Section III below).

2 Methodology

In order to identify different formative assessment processes suchas questioning, correcting, counter-suggesting, marking, observingand so forth I have focused on particular assessment events or inci-dents as the unit of analysis (Torrance and Pryor, 1998: 5). Withthese authors I share a key theoretical interest in the social construc-tion of assessment and learning in action, in ordinary classroom set-tings (p. 5).

Data are gathered by classroom observation and recorded on audio

tape. Three schools are involved, within the same school district(circolo didattico), and four teachers are observed: three generalists,and one specialist who was involved in the pilot study (see Table 1above). They all volunteered to participate in the research, as this waspart of a teacher development project I have been coordinating in theschool district (for details, see Acknowledgements at the end of thisarticle). A total of 70 children were involved. The transcribed obser-vational data so far derive from about 15 hours of audio recordingsin 3rd and 4th grade classrooms (children aged 8 to 10).

From each recording relevant and interesting assessment eventswere selected and transcribed, ranging from one to five minutes inlength. Transcribed data have been qualitatively analysed, adding acommentary on each action which could be of interest for subsequentanalysis. This first level analysis and interpretation of assessmentevents will be developed further through discussion with individualteachers.

Alongside the classroom observations, meetings with teachers havealso taken place. The initial meeting at the beginning of the yearintroduced the teachers to the project and its aims. Intermediate meet-

ings are being held with individual teachers in order to explore criti-cally and analyse the classroom observation processes through thetranscriptions and to gain a better insight into the assessment events.



5/12


Further meetings are planned to implement a teacher developmentcomponent for peer classroom observation, so that teachers may con-tinue with peer observations on their own. A final meeting at the endof the school year will evaluate progress to date and plan for the nextphase of the research. It is envisaged that collaboration between theresearcher and the teachers will continue to strengthen the teacher-development dimension arising from this research, possibly throughan action research methodology (i.e., a methodology focusing on aparticular problem in a given context carried out only to solve thespecific problem).

III Preliminary findings

Torrance and Pryors (1998:160) framework of assessment processesassigns formative assessment events to one of 14 categories (see AO in Appendix 1). This provides the conceptual basis for the presentstudy. Data collected so far can be assigned to the following ninecategories, out of the original total of 14:

A) Questioning / elicitingB) CorrectingC) Judging

D) RewardingE) Observing processF) Examining productG) ClarifyingH) Task criteriaJ) Metacognitive questioning

Appendix 1 orders the actions from the most frequent ones to thosenot used at all, as reflected in the classroom data analysed thus far.The most common teacher action so far is A, that of asking questionsto elicit evidence of what the pupils know, understand or can do, towhich pupils respond (p. 160). A pupils response is (almostinevitably) followed by B: correction, counter-suggestion or infor-mation already supplied by the teacher.

The two actions of questioning (A) and correcting or making coun-ter-suggestions (B) represent the first and last of the familiar three-part sequence of Input, Response and Feedback, a sequence which isextremely common in teaching settings (see Sinclair and Coulthard,1975). However. this apparently simple IRF dynamic is in fact an

oversimplification of what actually happens. An example is given inTranscript 1 (given in Appendix 2a), where the teachers questiontriggers a long sequence of interaction (here, as in Transcript 2 in



6/12


Appendix 2b), the key assessment actions are highlighted in bold; theletters correspond to the assessment processes identified in Appen-dix 1).

At the end of the exchange in Appendix 2a, the teacher claimedthat she had gained a clearer idea of Marks stage of acquisition ofspatial prepositions. As Mark was considered an average pupil, thisrepresents a benchmark for the rest of the class. The teacher sub-sequently said that she would take a note of this and would rehearseprepositions with the whole class in a future lesson. However, shedid not do so in the subsequent two months.

From the above example there is some evidence that: the assump-tion that teachers can easily interpret pupils behaviour and ask clearquestions that elicit clear and discrete answers is not well founded

(Torrance and Pryor, 1998: 45). This episode shows that questionsare asked for two purposes: revising the content of the lesson andestablishing rules for teacherpupil interaction. Indeed, selectingMark for responding to her questions not only feeds the languageassessment process, but also reinforces guidance to other pupils onhow to rehearse spatial prepositions and, more generally, on how torespond to language drills.

The analyses so far reveal a high proportion of the three actionsidentified above which are mostly targeted at rehearsing knowledge

and/or at enhancing motivation. There are assessment actions exemplified in Torrance and Pryors data (1998) that are rarely ornever implemented at all by some of the teachers observed. Here, Irefer mainly to those assessment actions that could develop and pro-mote learning processes through, for example, metalinguistic and met-acognitive activities. In other words, the data do not show teachersasking for clarification about what an individual pupil has said ordone, or questioning why and how pupils have approached or achie-ved a task in the way they have.

However, data from another study in progress illustrates assessmentprocess J, that of metacognitive questioning.3 Here individual pupilshad been asked to put some scrambled phrases in the correct orderto reconstruct a known story. Once they had completed their task, theresearcher spoke to some of the pupils at their desks to ask abouthow and why they had sequenced their sentences in a particular way.

The conversation is transcribed in Appendix 2b. The key questionsare indicated in bold. In this example, the researcher is trying to trig-ger from the pupil the thinking process that has led to the pupils

3The data were collected for a small-scale action research study as part of an assessed workby Anna Luberto, a primary teacher, during a training course at the University of Bologna. Ithank Anna Luberto for use of these data.



7/12


ordering of the sentences. The hypothesis underlying this metacogni-tive questioning (see J in Appendix 1) is that through this kind ofinteraction pupils can better articulate their understanding and thusbecome more aware of their own linguistic processes.

When asked about the absence of this kind of formative assessmentaction in their transcripts, the four teachers in the study said that theydo not think it is viable in the foreign language-teaching context,although they believe it is important in other subjects, particularly formaths and other logical thinking activities. This, it is suggested,touches on a crucial issue for foreign language teaching in Italy,where the methodology for younger language learners has alwaysbeen concerned with making learning fun and using the foreignlanguage only, thereby neglecting completely the serious cognitive

and linguistic aspects of this subject. (It is to be noted, though, thatsome teachers codeswitch from the second language to the first langu-age, as Transcript 1 in Appendix 2a shows, but this is more an excep-tion than the rule.)

Taking stock of the data collected so far, it would appear that teach-ers are often not able to make productive use of information theycollect for formative purposes. In other words, language teachersquestions do trigger responses that elicit an immediate feedback, butthen such responses are not fully exploited for the potential insight

that they may provide into the language learning process. Further-more, teachers seem to make little or no use of some types of ques-tioning and negotiations that could be fed into formative assessmentand enhance the learning processes. Critical discussion with teachersand deeper data analysis could cast further light on this emerginglooseness of formative assessment.

IV Conclusions

The focus of this research in progress is on formative, as opposedto summative, classroom assessment in a primary English as a foreignlanguage context. This study has been motivated by the fact that wehave relatively little knowledge at the level of classroom implemen-tation of assessment (but see Rea-Dickins and Gardner, this issue)and that this is an area in which it appears that teachers may need tosharpen their professional skills. In the work in progress reportedhere, I have started to identify and describe how assessment is beinginterpreted and implemented by EFL teachers in the classes observed,

based on the analytic framework of Torrance and Pryor (1998). Thiswas used because it enables us to investigate formative assessmentas a social process through a discourse analysis perspective. It also



8/12


investigates formative assessment as a multifaceted phenomenon, tak-ing into account many of the actions that teachers and pupils performin their everyday classroom work. The classroom data analysed todate suggests that some formative assessment actions are more com-mon than others (i.e., questioning, correcting, judging), at the expenseof those that could be considered more beneficial for learning (e.g.,observing process, examining product, metacognitive questioning).

In terms of teacher perspectives, the parallel discussions with themhave highlighted the following as major points arising from the col-laborative research:

1) an increased awareness of a wide range of formative assessmentactions available, with particular reference to metacognitive

questioning, communication of task criteria and individual pupilobservation at work;2) the importance of an open attitude towards learners, aimed at

encouraging and establishing a dialogue with them; in particular,one teacher stressed the possibility of taking mistakes as a start-ing point for interaction rather than merely correcting them (seeZangl, this issue);

3) the importance of peer-teacher observations in developing newinsights into ones own professional understanding and work.

Furthermore, the teachers extremely positive responses and theirwillingness to continue this partnership in research serves to confirmthe appropriacy of this type of collaborative classroom enquiry. As aresult of this, a follow-up research proposal for further funding hasbeen submitted to the Local Education Authority.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Pauline Rea-Dickins, Lyle Bachman and theanonymous reviewer for their guidance in helping me to revise earlierversions of this article. This study is part of a larger project developedwithin the three-year Euroconferences Programme Evaluating inno-vation and establishing research priorities in the teaching of foreignlanguages in European primary schools, and partly supported by theEuropean Commission under Framework 4, DG XXII, Training andMobility of Researchers. The research reported here has been under-taken as part of a wider initiative involving a group of researchersfrom other Mediterranean countries. The research has also been

funded through a local project Progetto Lingue Comunitarie nellaScuola Elementare Azione 6 Progettazione e Attuazione di inizi-ative di valutazione della qualita dellapprendimento linguistico.



9/12


V References

Gattullo F. and Pallotti G. in press: Foreign language teaching to younglearners in Italy. In Nikolov, M. and Curtain, H., editors, An early

start: young learners and modern languages in Europe and beyond.European Council for Modern Languages: Graz, Austria.Sinclair, J. and Coulthard R. 1975: Towards an analysis of discourse.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Torrance H. and Pryor, J. 1998: Investigating formative assessment: teach-

ing, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.



10/12


Appendix 1 The processes of formative assessment

Description Possible teacher intentions Possible positive effects for the

pupil

A. T asks principled question Insight or understanding of Ps Rehearsal of knowledge,(seeks to elicit evidence of what knowledge, understanding or understanding or skills;P knows, understands or can skills articulation of understanding todo). P responds realize understanding

B. T supplies information, corrects Communication of alternative or Enhancement of knowledgeor makes counter-suggestions more acceptable product and/or understanding

C. T assigns mark, grade or Information for summative Information about presentsummary judgement on the assessment achievement with respect toquality of this piece of work longer-term goals

D. T rewards or punishes the pupil Improvement or maintenance of Enhanced motivationor demonstrates approval or relationship with pupil;disapproval enhancement of motivation

E. T observes P at work (process) Gain in understanding of Enhanced motivation due to Tswhy /how the pupil has attentionapproached or achieved task

F. T examines work done (product) Gain in understanding of what P Enhanced motivation due to Tshas done attention

G. T asks for clarification about Gain in understanding of what P Re-articulation of understanding;what has been done or will be has done and of Ps enhanced self-awarenessdone; P replies understanding of the task

H. T communicates task criteria Communicating goals and Understanding of task and piece

(what has to be done in order to success criteria; ensuring work of workcomplete the task) or negotiates is on targetthem with P

J. T questions P about how and Gain in understanding of Articulation of thinking aboutwhy specific action has been why/how P has approached or thinkingtaken (meta-process and meta- achieved taskcognitive questioning); Presponds

K. T communicates quality criteria Enhancement of quality of future Understanding of notions ofor negotiates them with P work; promotion of greater quality to aid future self-

independence monitoring

L. T critiques a particular aspect of Enhancement of quality of future Understanding of notions ofthe work or invites P to do so work; promotion of greater quality to aid future self-independence monitoring

M. T gives and/or discusses Attributions and therefore Enhanced motivation;evaluative feedback on work motivation of P for further work development of learning goalsdone with respect to task and/oreffort and/or aptitude, ability

N. T suggests or negotiates with P Insight into ways forward for Insight into ways to continuewhat to do next immediate further teaching of working and learning

individual, refocusing P oncurricular achievement

O. T suggests or negotiates with P Insight into ways forward for Deepening of understanding of

what to do next time planning or group activities principle /process

Source: adapted from Torrance and Pryor, 1988



11/12


Appendix 2a: Transcript 1 Example of a sequence containingActions A (questioning), B (correcting), D (rewarding)

Mark look its / behind / the sofa Mark pronounces thepreposition incorrectly

T /behind/? T prompts self-correctionAlf (whispering) behind another pupil suggests the

answer overlapping with theteachers next turn

T are you sure? T questions Marks answer[= Action A]

Mark behind Mark repeats his matessuggestion

T mm mmT do you remember whats his name? Spot T may not be satisfied with the

the little dog spot? who is who is (.) be- answer since it was suggested

hind the door be-hind the carpet? nella by another pupil. She goesstoria che abbiamo fatto con i flaps? ti back to a well-known story toricordi? [in the story with the flaps? do recall spatial prepositions;you remember?] translation is given in square[= Action A] brackets

Mark behind Mark is only partly able tofollow the teacher

T come si dice? how do you say this (in T now asks in Italian howEnglish)? look (showing something above) do you say this in English[= Action A] with the help of a gesture

Mark on correct answerT (showing something underneath) T does not need to repeat the

questionMark un M hesitatesT under T completes the answer

[= Action B]T (moving Mark in front of his classmate) the quasi-drill goes onMark in M answersT in? on? under? T produces a different input

[= Action B]Mark (. .) M hesitatesT tu come sei rispetto a Paul? davanti T rephrases the second

[where are you relative to Paul? in front question in Italianof][= Action B]

Mark ehm mmmm M is showing difficultiesT in front of and now invece come sei? T provides the answer and

[where are you now?] goes on asking(moving Mark behind his classmate)[= Action A & B]

Mark on M makes a new mistakeT ehe oh on? no not on T corrects

[= Action B]Mark behind finally, Mark provides the

correct responseT be-hind ok be-hind T acknowledges stressing

[= Action D] the pronunciation.



12/12


Appendix 2b: Transcript 2 Example of a sequence containingActions A (questioning) and J (metacognitive questioning)

Researcher dimmi una cosa, i pezzi nuovi come R questions P about how shehai fatto a metterli? quando cerano has put the words in order;quei pezzi nuovi che non ti translation given in squareaspettavi? [Tell me this: how did you bracketssort the new bits, those new bits youwere not expecting?][= Action J]

Giulia perche mmm certe parole (.) dei pezzi P tries to articulate her thinkingnuovi mm certe parole le sapevo, allorasapevo come metterle [cause mmmsome words (.) some new chunks mmI did know some words, so I knew howto sort them]

R mm mm per esempio? R asks for an example[= Action A]

G (legge) The ice-cream is very cold and P gives itit is on Mr Hunts head

R Si [= Action D] R acknowledgesG Noi sul quaderno non avevamo scritto P continues

che era molto freddo, allora io losapevo cosa voleva dire, allora [Wehadnt written it in our exercise bookthat it was very cold, so I knew what itmeant, so]

R Lhai aggiunto, bene. E poi cosa hai R asks further, providing

dovuto aggiungere? Hai dovuto some scaffoldingaggiungere anche unaltra parola?[You added it, well. And then what didyou have to add? Did you have to adda new word?][= Action D & J]

G si and P replies with and, the linkingword needed to put two phrasestogether.

R and mm, in modo da mettere insieme R is helping P in the process ofle due frasi [and mm, so that you scaffoldingcould link the two sentences together]

G si P acknowledges.

formative assessment in elt primary

Documents