BCTELA

Lisa Chang 

Lisa teaches grade 5/6 French Immersion at Gilmore School in Richmond and has a Graduate Diploma in Educational Leadership and a Masters in Linguistics. She is passionate about improving her students’ level of French literacy.

Creating a sculpture takes time
Together, my students and I are educational sculptors of our assessment practices. We must first understand the subject matter and have clear goals before beginning. Secondly, we must examine samples and models to develop a clearer picture of what our product should look like in the end. Thirdly, we must work on our sculpture in stages, with patience, care and a criti- cal eye. Feedback from the material and from other artists, our students and educational colleagues, will help us along the way to reaching our goal. At times, we must step back and look at our project globally, adjusting as needed. Eventually, we learn to self- assess regularly as we sculpt, to make sure we are on track.

The Subject

For the past year, literature circles were a part of the reading program in my grade 5/6 French Immersion class, where my students read a variety of novels and had small group discussions to share their thoughts about their reading. After each discussion session, students were asked to reflect on their peers’ comments and to further reflect on the section they had discussed in their reading journals. The responses were often shallow and literal. For example, they wrote out what each member of their group had said and a few adjectives to describe the section such as exciting, boring, funny, and so forth. Dissatisfied with the results, I decided to give them personalized feedback on their responses by high- lighting strengths and suggesting ways to improve.

I assumed that my students would take my feed- back and use it to improve their next response. For the most part, however, the next response was not much better than the previous one. As soon as they received their notebooks back, they promptly turned to the page with the mark, looked at it for a second and put their book away. I thought to myself: “Most of my students are not paying attention to nor using the comments I spent so much time writing.” I then decided to give feedback only, without a mark. They were confused at first, asking where their mark was. I explained to them that I wanted them to look at the comments I had written and to use them to improve their responses next time. Nonetheless, the reading responses that followed still showed little or no improvement, not as much as I had hoped.

Perhaps they don’t understand my words, but even if they do, do they know how to use the feed- back?” As I continued to reflect, more questions arose. If they did not have the understanding, how could I make the comments clearer? How could I teach them to use the feedback? How could I encourage my students to be more accountable for the feedback I gave them? The global question at this point was, “How can I improve my current assessment practices to help my students be more accountable for the feedback they receive in order to improve their reading comprehension?” I hoped that by improving my formative assessment practices, I would not only help my students develop metacognitively, but in doing so, help them gain a more meaningful understanding of what they were reading in French.

Methodology

In tackling these poignant questions, I devised a plan. First, I needed to profile and establish base- line data on my group of students. I reflected on who my students were and surveyed their attitudes towards reading and their knowledge of reading strategies. This particular class was comprised of students from a variety of cultural backgrounds. There was also a variety of reading interests and a range of reading levels in French from minimally meeting expectations to exceeding expectations for their grade level. My next step was to read professional articles and books to build my knowledge of assessment.

A Little Art History

One of the essential questions in my research was “What is effective feedback? What does it include and not include?” Through experience and research (O’Connor, 2002; Black & William, 1998; Gregory, Cameron, Davies, 1997), I knew that effec- tive feedback is not a simple letter grade. It is less likely that students will pay attention to the com- ments you give if there is a mark beside them. Susan Brookhart (2008) nicely summarizes the key points of what effective feedback is: 1) it describes where the student is in relation to the goal; 2) it points out ways for students to achieve the goal; 3) it should be specific but not an answer; 4) and it should not be accompanied by a formal judgement such as a grade. Essentially, the comments we write back to our students must “cause thinking” (Leahy, Lyon, Thompson & Wiliam, 2005).

Research on assessment also led me to discover that pro- viding written feedback is only a small part of the much larger picture of assessment aslearning. Earl & Katz (2005) note that “learning is not just a matter of transferring ideas from someone who is knowledgeable to someone who is not” (p. 41). In other words, there is a need for shared responsibil- ity of learning between teacher and student (Leahy, Lyon, Thompson & Wiliam, 2005; Earl & Katz, 2005; Chappuis, 2005). My students needed to be involved in the assessment process from the beginning so that formative assessment could become a learning tool. In this way, students would be actively engaged at each step of the way in creating their own understanding and thus begin to take ownership of it, an approach resonant of Piaget’s constructivist insights on cog- nitive development (O’Connor, 2002; Woolfolk, 1998).

I once believed that feedback is simply when a teacher shares oral or written comments with students about their work. Rather, feedback is given at many points in the learn- ing process and takes on many different forms. It begins with criteria building with the students. Rubrics developed with students should be written in student-friendly language, and examples of both strong and weak work should be abundant, well-organized and tangible (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; Chappuis, 2005; Davies, 2000). These were ideas I needed to keep in mind to bring me closer to my goal.

Once my students understood the language of the rubric and practiced together how to assess the samples I provided, I would be able to move on to giving descriptive feedback. I already recognized the importance of providing feedback that is focused and limited to only one or two aspects, so that students are not overwhelmed. My next question focused on how to get my students to think about the comments and sugges- tions. I would need to help them develop the metacognitive skills necessary to use the feedback as competent readers.

How would they proceed to use the feedback to change their work for the better? This involves engaging my students in self-assessment and reflection, answering the questions “Where am I now?” and “How can I close the gap?” (Chap- puis, 2005). Tomlinson & McTighe (2006) suggest that “[a] natural way of promoting student self-assessment and reflec- tion is through asking questions” (p. 125). In their book, they provide a list of possible specific questions I could pose to students to get them thinking about their own thinking dur- ing reading. They could respond to questions such as What is still confusing? How could you improve? What would you do differently next time? How has what you’ve learned changed your thinking?In this way, students are held accountable for their learning.

Working with the right clay

No matter what your best intentions and visions are, if you do not begin with the right materials, you will not achieve the results you hope for. This is one of the many key learn- ings from my current inquiry. In the case of the Literature Circles, the materials are the books available to my students. Faye Brownlie (2005) notes that “the quality of the novels you choose for your…book collection is critical. Students will read widely and passionately if the novels they read are compelling” (p. 11). In a French Immersion program, we have the added challenge of finding books at the appropri- ate language level.

What I have often found with book selection in French is that when the interest level is matched, the language is usually too difficult, requiring my students to frequently refer to the dictionary and ultimately becoming frustrated. In the past, I have thus sacrificed content for the reading level and got less than satisfactory results in the quality of reading responses. Although students were able to understand the literal storyline, the novel was unable to maintain their interest and therefore they had little to say in terms of personal reactions to the content.

For example, Student A honestly stated at the beginning of his original response that he thought the story was boring and proceeded to give me a summary of the plot. Of course, I initially thought this response did not fit the criteria and therefore deserved a minimal mark. However, Student A quickly made me realize in his reaction to his grade that my assessment was unfair because he had tried his best to make personal connections but the book was just plain boring for him. My question then became whether my feedback would have any effect if I continued to provide the students with “poor” reading materials.

At this enlightening moment, I decided to choose the next book with a much more critical eye, ensuring that the content was relevant to my students while at the same time keep- ing the language level as appropriate as possible. This time around I had much greater success. Student A enjoyed this second book and thus made many rich connections to the events in the story with personal experiences and the world.

From then on, I more carefully screened French books for my reading program, taking into consideration not only language level but also quality of content and student feed- back. If it appeared that many students expressed low inter- est in the novel, I took the book out of rotation and added new ones. Depth of reading comprehension was not going to improve if students did not enjoy what they were reading.

Models & Criteria

Now that we had the “right” books, I was able to focus next on demystifying the assessment process with my stu- dents. The first step was building criteria together. This strate- gic move stemmed from my concern that my class did not understand or know how to use the written feedback I pro- vided. Stiggins (2001) suggests bringing them in early on in the assessment process with a clear appropriate vision of what it is we want them to master. So, I took the BC Performance Standards on Responding to Literature for my grade level as the base from which to work. My goal was to help students write richer responses to the text, so I limited the number of criteria on which to focus (Figures 1 & 2). Students may become overwhelmed and discouraged when it appears they have a lot to work on at once (Cooper, 2007). Furthermore, the “focus of your assessment should match the focus of your instruction” (Cooper, 2007, p. 145).

Students worked in pairs to first read over the document to try to understand what they could and also to come up with questions, which I could help clarify afterwards. Next, I provided each group with examples of reading responses to sort into appropriate levels based on the criteria. The role of the samples was very important in the assessment process (Cooper, 2007). They were concrete models of what the criteria described so the students had a clearer vision of the expectations. I was very pleased with the level of student engagement in this activity. Almost all of my students were actively discussing which responses demonstrated which criteria and how. It was a brilliant learning experience not only for my students but for me as well, as I was able to see how reflective and independent they were in constructing their own understanding (Figure 3).

As the intended audience of this government document are educators, the language had to be changed into more student-friendly terms. And who better to do this than the students themselves? Enlisting their aid was another step toward helping them understand the feedback by making the “invisible visible” as Tomlinson & McTighe (2006) put it. Once it appeared that my students understood the distinction between the different levels, I combined the pairs of students to make groups of four and gave each new group another copy of the criteria sheet. Their task now was to rewrite the criteria into their own words (Figure 4).

I then took all of their suggestions and compiled it into a rubric that we, my students and I, were going to use for assessing their work. Although this was a long process spanning over several weeks, it was well worth the time and effort given the noticeable improvements in their responses to literature later on.

Rework, rework and rework

After a couple of months, it seemed to me that the responses my students were producing either plateaued or regressed in quality. Could it be that they had forgotten what quality responses looked like? I thus decided it was time to revisit the criteria and look at more examples to refresh their memory. In fact, I decided to make the revisits a routine activity not only to keep the expectations at the forefront of their minds, but also to view a variety of examples. Cooper (2007) suggests that it is important for students to see a full range of samples in order for them not to have a narrow view, espe- cially of high quality work. After each of the revisits, I noticed a surge of progress.

Looking back at the criteria also provided an opportunity to make adjustments as needed for further clarification. For example, in one instance, a student noticed that therewas no distinction between the connections criteria of the categories Minimally Meets versus Fully Meets Expectations. As a result of giving students the chance to look critically at the assessment process, we were able to further clarify expectations—another indication they were taking more responsibility for their own learning.

Artistic Technique 

"Composing feedback is an art in itself” (Brookhart, 2008). I had tried a number of formats before I found one that worked for both me and my students. First, along with a mark, I wrote a personalized note highlighting a strength and suggesting a way to improve. I then asked students to respond to both the mark and the comments. I had hoped that by obliging them to respond, they would become more account- able for the feedback. However, I soon realized that they were more concerned about the fairness of their mark based on the amount of effort they put in, or they simply agreed with the mark and rewrote my comments. Their subsequent responses showed minimal or no improvement. In as much as it was a way to communicate with all of my students, it was not feasible in terms of time to do on a regular basis nor was it effective. Disappointed, I went back to the drawing board.

For the next attempt, I eliminated the mark to remove the “distraction”, a move that is well supported by much research (O’Connor, 2002; Black & William, 1998; Gregory, Cameron, Davies, 1997). Instead, I asked my students to glue a copy of the rubric into their notebooks after each of their responses. When I assessed their work, I highlighted directly on the rubric where their work fit. Then to the side, I gave a star comment and a staircase comment. The first symbol pointed out a real strength in their response, and the second symbol, what they could work on to improve (Figure 5). In writing the suggestions, I had to keep in mind a number of things I had researched so that I was giving the most effective feedback possible. These principles included being non- judgemental in tone, respectful of students’ own initiative for change, process-focused, doable and thought provoking with- out giving away the “answer”(Brookhart, 2008).

Moreover, writing the feedback directly on the rubric reminded my students of the criteria, and gave them a descriptive sense of how they were doing, and without the mark. As a final step to developing their awareness and accountability, I asked my students to keep records themselves. They each had a sheet entitled “Where am I? Where am I going?” which requires them to take the feedback and rewrite it into their own words each time. Essentially, they were celebrating their strengths and setting goals for the next time. Regular goal setting, I realized, is a component of the assessment process that should not be undervalued, as it provides students with a tool to get to the next level.

Taking Shape: metacognitive development

Despite the progress I had made with demystifying the assessment process for my students, a little voice inside still told me that there was one missing piece to my inquiry puz- zle. Perhaps it was time for me again to step back and relinquish more control over the assessment process. Reminding myself that my goal was to encourage greater accountability, I needed to help my students understand for themselves how their responses were assessed. To do so, I wanted them to self-assess and peer assess, to be their own teacher. To guide them through this process, I took a strategy from Andrade (2008) where students colour coded the rubric and then underlined evidence in their own or peer responses of hav- ing met the criteria.

It was eye-opening for both me and my students. Some discovered their response had little or no evidence, while others highlighted evidence that did not demonstrate the criteria. Yet, others were happy to see concretely they were on the right track. I clarified and modeled. And we practiced some more. Once I felt that they could, for the most part, recognize their strengths and struggles, I asked them to use the colour coding feedback to guide their revisions. I gave them the opportunity to make revisions before handing in their work to me. On occasion, we did peer assessment. It was a joy to see that they were able to comment “professionally” on each other’s work using the language of the rubric we had created together.

The Future

This learning journey has been a powerful one for me. I wanted to help my students gain a richer comprehension of the French texts they were reading. Through my inquiry, I slowly began to realize that by releasing my instinctual “teacherly” control over the assessment process, I have in fact gained more control over the problem that I had been struggling with for such a long time. My students did not need me to give them more information. They needed me to step back enough to allow them to construct their own understanding as Piaget and other constructivists have pointed out for so long. We were partners in their learning process.

Doing this in partnership also meant breaking the assessment process into stages. I learned that assessment began much earlier, at building criteria instead of by simply giving written feedback to the students. By participating in the creation of the rubric, students felt it was fair and useful. One student said in a survey: “Je pense que les critères on a fait ensemble sont juste. C’est parce que nous (les enfants) ont créé ces critères. Donc, si le prof donne l’enfant un 1, l’enfant ne doit pas être fâché car le prof a marké la réponse par utilise les critères qu’il a crée”(“I think that the criteria we made together are fair. That’s because we [kids] created these criteria. So, if the teacher gives the child a 1, the child must not be mad because the teacher marked the response by using the criteria he created”). The students had taken ownership of their learning which made it more meaningful for them and therefore, they were improving.

So, what holds for me in the future in terms of helping my French Immersion students have a more meaningful relationship with French Literature? I need to keep in mind the power of “we” when pursuing any kind of learning in my class. I also learned to listen to my students regarding the book choices, an unexpected but valuable discovery. It will continue to be a challenge to put together a collection of books that are of interest to my students and are the appropriate language level. However, finding the right books to hook students will only motivate them to develop a deeper comprehension of the text. When you are not interested, it is difficult to generate rich thoughts. And as I assess, I need to take this into consideration.

In our assessment practices, we are educational sculptors patiently working on helping our students learn. We succeed in our practice by spending time to understand the subject and proceed in stages. Keeping our goal in mind, we work together with our students, our material, and adjust as needed while referring to models for guidance. When the experience is rich and relevant, students will be intrinsically motivated to read in French and to respond with greater depth and understanding.

 

References

Andrade, Heidi. (2007). “Self-Assessment Through Rubrics,” in Educational Leadership, 65(4), 60-63.

Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). “Inside the Black Box,” in Kappan. October, 139-148. Brookhart, Susan M. (2008). “Feedback that fits,” in Educa- tional Leadership, 65(4), 54-59.

Brownlie, Faye. (2005). Grand Conversations, Thoughtful Responses. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press.

Brownlie, Faye and King, Judith. (2000). Learning in Safe Schools: Creating Classrooms Where all Students Belong. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.

Brownlie, Faye, Feniak, Catherine & Schnellert, Leyton. (2006). Student Diversity: Classroom strategies to meet the learning needs of all students. Markham, ON: Pem- broke.

Chappuis, Jan. (2005). “Helping Students Understand Assess- ment,” in Educational Leadership: Assessment to Pro- mote Learning, 63(3), 39-43..

Cooper, Damian. (2007). Talk About Assessment: Strategies and Tools to Improve Learning. Toronto, ON: Thomson Nelson.

Davies, A. (2000). Making Classroom Assessment Work. Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.

Earl, L., and Katz, S. (2005). Rethinking Classroom Assess- ment with Purpose in Mind. Winnipeg, Manitoba: West- ern and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education.

Gregory, K., Cameron, C., and Davies, A. (1997) Setting and Using Criteria: For Use in the Middle and Secondary School Classroom. Merville, BC: Connections Publish- ing.

Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M. and Wiliam, D. (2005). “Classroom Assessment Minute by Minute, Day by Day,” in Educational Leadership: Assessment to Promote Learning, 63(3), 19-24.

O’Connor, Ken. (2002) How to Grade for Learning. Glen- view, IL: Pearson Education, Inc.

Stiggins, Richard. (2000). Student-involved classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tomlinson, C. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Alexan- dria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiliam, Dylan. (2006). “Assessment: Learning communities can use it to engineer a bridge connecting teaching and learning,” in Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 16-20.

Woolfolk, Anita E. (1998). “Cognitive Development and Lan- guage,” in Educational Psychology. Needham Heights: MA; Allyn and Bacon.