Assessment Architecture: What Does This Mean?

When I think of architecture, I think of the construction of an object from design concept, where the idea is brought to life using a model and drawings, to design specs, where the idea is realised using a blueprint detailed with what parts are needed for the design build, and finally to construction, where the design is fully realised through the integration of design concept and design specs into a functioning entity. Now, when I fit architecture and assessment as a unique way of approaching the teaching and learning process with students, I can see the whole picture, however I was at first still struggling to conceptualise assessment architecture in terms of teaching.

Erkens et al (2017) states “assessment guides instruction. Knowing the end goal is the only way to ensure that instruction hits the mark” (p. 80). So, if I put this in terms of architecture, Erkens seems to be saying, you must know what you are building before you can choose the materials needed to build the object. And that, to know what you are building and see it realised, you need to create the assessment with detailed criteria to iron out how you go about building your object. Which reminds me of what I learnt in the first semester, the concept of backwards planning. Backwards planning entails having a clear idea of what you want your students to know. From there, you then use that knowledge to create an assessment, using specific criteria to evaluate the knowledge outcomes, which in turn allows you to focus on the parts of the curriculum that answers these knowledge outcomes and from there you can derive lessons that engage students in the learning process of these knowledge outcomes.

After reading and seeking outside sources to give more currency to the terminology being used by Erkens et al (2017), I had my eureka moment: backwards planning is assessment architecture. And to dig a bit deeper, Erkens et al (2017) details the need for creating the best possible conditions to make the assessment architecture successful. A teacher must understand the standards by which he/she/they have to teach and to do that a teacher has to “deconstruct the standards into detailed, specific elements [or targets]. Next, a teacher must isolate and define the learning progressions their students must go through to fully attain the knowledge outcomes. This means, constructing a learning pathway that eventually leads to a sophisticated interpretation—by the students—of the knowledge outcomes. Once this is established, it is important that both students and teacher know what they are learning and the complexities involved in developing this knowledge so that not only will the teacher be able to define student proficiency, but the students also as well will be able to define proficiency and, if necessary, learn how to self-assess and self-correct to achieve that proficiency. Erkens et al (2017) refers to this process of knowledge attainment and output as “cognitive complexity” (p. 86) whereby the student and teacher scaffold learning to reach higher levels of complex understanding and interpretation. However, this acquirement of cognitive complexity cannot come to fruition without, what Erkens et al (2017) refers to as “learning intentions” (p. 87). Learning intentions define what (the target) and how well (success criteria) a student will learn. And yet, all of this won’t matter if the teacher does not choose the right assessment, from which to construct learning.

When first starting out (during my preservice teaching internship), I struggled with what Erkens et al (2017) refers to as the measuring tool. During that time I had a hard time following the assessments my cooperative teacher outlined for me and kept focusing on the student as opposed to the work they were producing and whether it aligned with the assessment. Being able to successfully evaluate student work means having an assessment that is well developed and leaves little room for subjectivity. Jennifer Gonzales (Cult of Pedagogy) speaks to her experience as a teacher. How, for a long time in her career she did not construct her teaching in an effective manner that allowed for true engagement. In her post on backward planning, she details the importance of constructing the assessment and working from there to create lessons and instructions that appeal to students and allows students to fully grasp whatever information is being imparted on them. Gonzales states “with a good rubric in place, we then work backwards to determine what lessons students need to do excellent work on the final assessment…the lessons and activities leading up to the final assessment are there to give students exposure to the knowledge and practice with the skills necessary to perform on that final assessment; ideally, they should receive no grades at all on those activities. If you absolutely must assign some points, be sure the final assessment is worth a heck of a lot more than those smaller tasks” (Gonzales, 2021).

Like any teacher, I have a lot of work to do to reach my peak potential when it comes to creating assessments that lead to dynamic lessons and engagement amongst my students. I plan to do the work to get there. I will continue to read and familiarise myself with a plethora of resources, such as Cult of Pedagogy, Learning for Justice, CK-12, etc, to help me get there. I am excited to do the work because my students depend on me doing the work to help them succeed.

References

Erkens, C., Schimmer, T., & Vagle, N. D. (2017). Essential assessment: Six tenets for bringing hope, efficacy, and achievement to the classroom. Solution Tree Press.

Gonzales, J. (2021, April 29). Backward design: The basics. Cult of Pedagogy. https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/backward-design-basics/

What strategies can a teacher use for formative assessments?

Some classroom assessment practices/strategies the teacher used to promote the students’ learning and monitor their understanding:

1. Asking a broad sample of students to share their answers and/or ideas.

2. Circulating amongst the student groups, continuously checking on their progress, asking questions, and offering encouragement.

3. Use of effective questioning techniques: pose a question, pause, name a student to respond; pose a question, raise a hand, name a student to respond; probing for further information from the student, e.g., why questions: “why do you think X or Y; prompting to assist students to come up with the correct answer, e.g., how do you know it’s linear?

4. Encouraging students to record their responses on individual whiteboards, then making them viewable to the teacher to quickly see the accuracy of their answers.

5. Scaffolded learning is used to guide students from simple understanding to deep understanding and reasoning as the lesson progresses.

6. When an issue was identified, teacher guides the class in working together to explain the process.

7. The lesson is extended to real-world application such as careers, other uses applicable to jobs, interests outside of the classroom setting.

8. Written questions related to the task are distributed to each table/group of students to help ensure the required tasks are understood; others are put on the whiteboard.

9. Throughout the lesson, encouragement and praise are given (good job, awesome, nice, sounds good, etc.).

10. Encouraging student collaboration to problem solve in groups to motivate peer engagement and learning.

11. If students are off-task quickly but quietly bring them back into focusing on the immediate task.

12. Engaging students with a final activity such as exit tickets with a problem and a rationale completed at the end of the lesson and passed in for teacher review. 

The Levels of Feedback and Timing

Erkens et al (2017) indicate that there are four levels of feedback after an assessment activity: personal, task-oriented, process oriented and self-regulatory feedback. All four serve a unique purpose in the assessment of learning.

However, if you think of these four levels, the realisation is that they build upon each other. I believe the personal feedback would be the first step in directing student learning after the assessment activity. I think personal feedback sets up the learner to receive the other levels of feedback required to direct this learning. When we look at task-oriented feedback, we realize this is the next step as it characterizes the assessment activity in a way that gives the learner applicable understanding of the task and whether or not they were successful in its completion. With the process feedback, where teachers according to Erkens et al (2017) “focus on replicable processes that can be refined overtime” teachers are able to use this level of feedback to help the learner create and use strategies to propel their learning (p. 47). And, with the last level self-regulation feedback the learner can develop coping skills that helped them direct their own learning. This can be done through pointed questions or cues that serve to promote active thinking about the task at hand whilst encouraging students to become vested in their own learning process (Erkens et al, 2017).

With regards to timing of feedback after an assessment activity Erkens et al (2017) indicates that there is a time and place for “ immediate feedback” and “delayed feedback” (p. 48). Both serve to engage students in the learning process, whilst acknowledging the varied approach students have to this learning process. Erkens et al (2017) details approaches to giving formative feedback that is effective and engaging:

1.    Does my feedback elicit a productive response?

2.    Does my feedback identify what's next for the learner?

3.    Is my feedback targeted to each learner’s level?

4.    Is my feedback strength based?

5.    Does my feedback cause thinking? (Erkens et al, 2017, p. 51)

These are questions that while seemingly simplistic in nature, are necessary to ask oneself as a teacher.

Reference

Erkens, C., Schimmer, T., & Vagle, N. D. (2017). Essential assessment: Six tenets for bringing hope, efficacy, and achievement to the classroom. Solution Tree Press.

Features of Effective Feedback

1.     Does the feedback describe the student’s work against specific criteria?

2.     Is the feedback timely so that the student can use it?

3.     Does the feedback contain the right amount of main points?

4.     Is the feedback specific enough to support the next steps in the student’s learning?

5.     Is the feedback positive in tone and intention?

6.     Is the feedback clear enough for the student to understand?

7.     Does the feedback reflect something the teacher learned about the student’s performance?

8.     Will the student receiving the feedback learn something from it?

—Dr. Marian Fushell, Memorial University, NL.