Hi,

I’m coming at this from the perspective of an ESOL tutor in adult education. Being called a tutor mainly means being paid less, I’m afraid.

The specialists have made some really good points. Formative assessment is definitely a valuable part of teaching, but too many recording systems take far too much of limited teaching time. 

Imagine, four hours per week, 12 or more regular attendees plus the irregulars—I do need to teach, as well as record targets and attainments. (And yes, I know half of you are rolling your eyes and saying ‘Four whole hours? Not even 20 in the class?’) 

One of the problems for language teachers and learners is that typically, a person learning another language may find it extremely hard to reflect on their needs and learning, never mind put these into the language they are learning and an unfamiliar set of terminology. Assessment activities need to be meaningful to the student.

I keep a simple grid on the back of my lesson plans, with the main targets for each lesson and the names of the students. This gives me a quick-and-dirty record of who has actually done a particular piece of work and usually includes a simple check or cross to show whether each managed at the expected level. I can, if necessary, look back over these to get a picture of missed lessons, or indications that someone is struggling or sailing through. 

Our system requires that students write a short record and possibly a comment at the end of each lesson, which we usually manage to do, and I try to read these at intervals.

I generally comment informally when an activity shows real improvement, say, in asking questions or putting words in alphabetical order. This is pretty normal classroom practice, of course. I also, since I teach ESOL, ask students to give a short talk in class at fairly regular intervals and to write something such as a letter or report, based on our work for that period, and also reflecting the formal exams which they have to take at some stage. I give brief individual feedback on these as soon as possible, as well as making more copious notes, and the feedback and notes reflect individual needs and progress. I mainly teach multi-level classes, and I find this works well, because students can participate at their own level, or I can set different tasks. Before Christmas, for example, I asked L1/L2 students to give an account (2-3 minutes) of how to do something, with about a week to prepare, and I asked them to write a formal letter, the topic taken from past exam papers. We had worked as a group on various aspects of formal letters and on language suitable for explaining or giving instructions, among other areas. The lower level students wrote a letter asking for help and advice, while the higher level students wrote letters of complaint.

At the end of the first two terms of the year (3 terms in total), I interview each student (5-10 minutes usually) and we discuss the student’s learning plan, how well they feel they have done and how well I feel they have done, taking the assessment tasks into account, along with class work. This is our formal, required formative review, and I base the next set of Individual Learning Plans on this. There are some generic questions to answer such as ‘What have you achieved? What has been difficult? What do you need to do next?. If students have moderate English literacy (certainly E3 and up), I ask them to write the answers in their own words after our discussion. We do not have time for individual tutorials outside class hours.

I have noticed that many commercial textbooks and some public materials now include regular test-type activities, which may be called review, ‘check your learning’, ‘what can you do now?’ or something similar. I find that learners actually appreciate these, once they feel confident that they are not really tests with grades, because it gives them a sense of ongoing progress. I like them, if well-designed, for the same reason. While these are not individuated, they can still show the individual’s strengths or weaknesses. They aren’t all just tests of grammar, either.

And now, back to marking class work....

Cheryl Thornett
ESOL tutor
Birmingham (UK) Adult Education



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Rosen" <djrosen at comcast.net>
To: <specialtopics at nifl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:32 PM
Subject: [SpecialTopics 763] Re: Formative assessment in adult foundationskills in England


John Vorhaus, and other English Colleagues,

One question that many U.S. teachers will have, I am sure, is how do  
tutors (teachers) cope with all the time required for summative  
assessments and reporting, and still manage time for formative  
assessment.  Is this a problem in England, or not? If it is, how do  
tutors do it?

Another question,  for all of our guests: from a professional  
development point of view, do you find that tutors who do formative  
assessment well have had a lot of experience and training? Do they  
tend to be full-time, and/or older? To what extent can good formative  
assessment practices be learned in professional development and  
practiced well by relatively new teachers?

David J. Rosen
Special Topics Discussion Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net


On Feb 26, 2008, at 5:38 AM, John Vorhaus wrote:


> Dear Colleagues,

>

> Having given some of the background to adult basic skills in  

> England, here are a few words on the English case studies. At this  

> stage I have included only a general introduction and some thoughts  

> about the strengths and weaknesses of the formative assessment  

> practices observed. John may want to add to this, and I think he  

> may want to give details of each of the three sites visited. (If  

> not, I will later on today.)

>

> I am sure my three English colleagues will want to make contributions.

>

> Nomenclature

>

> Before I begin a word about nomenclature. In our case study report,  

> and below for ease of reference, we refer to 'adult basic skills'.  

> But:

>

> 1. 'Basic' has connotations many of us are unhappy with. One  

> alternative is 'adult literacy, language and numeracy'.

> 2. As Jan Eldred and others repeatedly and rightly say, the  

> differences between each of these three are so significant as to  

> raise the question whether we should treat them under a single  

> rubric. That is relevant to this discussion because we can't assume  

> that formative assessment practices found to be successful in a  

> literacy context will also or equally be found to be successful in  

> a numeracy context. Which takes us on to the question how far the  

> success of formative assessment practices are dependent on context.

>

> The Case Studies

>

> Three adult basic skills programmes were the subjects of the case  

> studies.  One is in London; one in the city of York (200 miles  

> north of London), and one is in the London Borough of Croydon (10  

> miles south of the centre of London). These three sites were picked  

> as exemplary programs by the England-based author. The choice of  

> these three programmes was based, in part, on the personal  

> experience of the author, but his selection was checked with others  

> who have a wide experience of programmes in England.  The choice  

> also was influenced by a desire to have a range of different types  

> of programmes and to have programmes that could be visited within a  

> limited time period.

>

> All of the programs provided inspection reports from the last visit  

> of teams from the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI). All three ALI  

> reports were positive.  Both instruction and management received a  

> positive rating on the ALI scale, usually receiving one of the top  

> two grades.  Programme leaders suggested two reasons why their  

> programmes were able to achieve and maintain a level of instruction  

> that would lead to being chosen as an exemplary programme. The  

> first was the quality of their teachers, and the second was their  

> staff’s regular reflection focused on programme improvement.

>

> Since these were all exemplary programmes, we asked the Heads of  

> Department at each of the 3 sites about the factors that most  

> support good teaching and learning. Whilst there was not a  

> consensus, there was broad agreement that each of the following  

> were important, and in roughly this order:

>

> Well qualified, committed and enthusiastic tutors; staff with  

> substantial hours who are willing to attend meetings, training and  

> to generally ‘go the extra mile’

> Regular feedback and reviews of learner progress

> Opportunities for continuing professional development

> Good resources, including e-learning resources; activities and  

> resources of interest and relevance to the learner

>

> The influence of these factors on good teaching and learning will  

> depend in part on the value each learner places on them. But  

> respondents agreed that well qualified, committed and enthusiastic  

> tutors help motivate and stimulate learners, inspiring them to do  

> their very best and helping them to overcome often long held  

> barriers to learning and personal success. Regular feedback and  

> reviews of learner progress are also extremely important, for this  

> is how learners will know whether they are heading in the right  

> direction. Constructive feedback is also invaluable at points when  

> learners are beginning to struggle, not only for the direct  

> assistance that the tutor is able to provide but also because  

> constructive on-going assessment promotes learners’ motivation and  

> persistence. Formative assessment also provides an opportunity for  

> the tutors themselves to receive feedback on the teaching and  

> learning process, identifying changes that need to be made.

>

> Respondents agreed that activities and resources that are of  

> interest and relevance to the learner help engage the learner,  

> maintaining motivation and supporting the natural learning process.  

> Finally, there was general agreement that levels of funding and  

> frequent redefining of priorities are the factors that most  

> threaten good Skills for Life teaching and learning, together with  

> an increasing administrative burden.

>

> Because of the national character of the system, initial  

> assessment, instruction, formative assessment, and summative  

> assessment look similar in all three.  However, they are by no  

> means the same. Each programme uses different types of assessment;  

> teachers draw on their experience and training as well as their  

> knowledge of their learners to design courses and teaching  

> strategies that work best in their context; and learners have a  

> range of summative tests they can take to secure the same  

> qualification. In addition, different types of institutions  

> (nonprofit, further education college, and local government  

> programme) are featured in our case studies and different types of  

> classes (ESOL, numeracy, and adult literacy) were observed at each  

> site.

>

>

> Some strengths and weakness: observations

>

> Strengths

>

> A focus on small increments of learning – something that is  

> manageable for learners who may otherwise be overwhelmed by the  

> demands of a course.

> Learners and teachers are encouraged to reflect and modify learning  

> goals and aspirations.

> Formative assessment encourages teachers to support learners, and  

> to assist learners in learning how to learn.

> Teachers are able to bring their own experience and training to the  

> learning process.

> Formative assessment encourages dialogue between teacher and  

> learner, and amongst learners.

> Teachers are encouraged to understand how learners learn best, and  

> at what rate.

>

> Weaknesses

>

> The amount of time taken up in recording the process, time taken  

> away from instruction.

> Whilst formative assessment procedures are supportive of learning,  

> if a class meets two hours per week for 12 weeks, and a learner has  

> missed two classes, the total time-on-task is only 20 hours. Even  

> an hour taken out of this time could affect learning.

> Each formative assessment task, therefore, should be justified by  

> evidence that it is supportive to learning.  The time required of  

> tutors by the writing up of formative assessment activities takes  

> away from their preparation for instruction. This time should be  

> justified by its impact on learning.

>

> Comment

>

> A few further thoughts, which go beyond evidence from the case  

> studies themselves, and beyond, perhaps, what John C would want to  

> say.

>

> 1. The weaknesses observed above might be said to lie not in the  

> formative assessment process per se, but in the (chosen means of)  

> writing it up. But it is not easy to think of far less labour  

> intensive alternatives, once they become embedded in an  

> institutional system. Some form of authoritative report seems  

> necessary to meet even minimal demands of accountability. This  

> takes us onto the terrain of professional judgement, and reliance  

> on that, and also onto questions about accountability systems. I'm  

> sure Jay Derrick will want to come in here.

>

> 2. One theme which Kathryn Ecclestone has brought to our attention  

> is the relation between assessment and personal autonomy: how far  

> do formative assessment practices contribute to the development of  

> the personal autonomy of the learner, encouraging her to take  

> responsibility for her learning, to understand how she learns and  

> how she is most likely to progress? And how far might the outcome  

> only serve to inhibit or neglect autonomy, perhaps because  

> formative assessment is inexpertly practiced, or because these  

> practices are adhered to only mechanically, or because the  

> interests of formative assessment become subverted to the demands  

> of summative assessment?

>

> 3.  I think David is right to raise the question how far formative  

> assessment can be disentangled from the practices that make up good  

> teaching generally. Many items listed under 'strengths' would  

> appear in any initial teacher training programme. I think there is  

> truth in what John B says, that formative assessment is partly to  

> be characterised by reference to attitude: by the attitude of  

> looking at the teaching and learning process from the learners'  

> point of view, of drawing attention to how the learner is  

> progressing, and giving priority to how best to support her. But I  

> can hear teacher trainers say - and I have! - that ' we do all of  

> that anyway'. Perhaps much (not all) of what is new is less at the  

> level of general principle and more in the details we are  

> uncovering about how best to apply those principles in particular  

> contexts.  But I expect Kathryn will want to disagree with that?

>

> More soon.

>

> John Vorhaus

>

>

>

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov

> > [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of David J. Rosen

> > Sent: 26 February 2008 06:00

> > To: specialtopics at nifl.gov

> > Subject: [SpecialTopics 759] Formative assessment in adult

> > foundation skillsin England

> >

> > Colleagues,

> >

> > Although Janet Looney will still be answering the (very many)

> > questions I asked, and other questions from discussion

> > participants, let's also move on to the first set of case

> > studies, from England. I have asked John Vorhaus and John

> > Comings if they could:

> >

> > 1. give a short overview of the national adult basic skills

> > context in England, particularly noting any features or terms

> > of the context that may be unfamiliar to a U.S. audience and

> > that are important to understand the case studies;

> >

> > 2. describe the three case studies; and

> >

> > 3. describe what are the most interesting, significant

> > findings and also explain how the case studies might be a

> > good example of formative assessment.

> >

> > It would be helpful if, in describing teacher formative

> > assessment practices in England, you could describe or give

> > examples of what goes beyond usual good practice in teaching

> > and learning, what, in particular, is good practice in

> > formative assessment. That is, some may wonder if formative

> > assessment is just a different name for good teaching? Is it

> > really something new? Is it really a discrete set of

> > practices? If, as Black and Wiliam's research shows, it makes

> > a difference in students' learning in elementary and

> > secondary education, what about formative assessment makes

> > that difference? Why is formative assessment such a powerful

> > set of strategies, so effective?  I believe that some of our

> > subscribers are still trying to understand of these issues;

> > perhaps the case studies in England might shed some light on them.

> >

> > David J. Rosen

> > Special Topics Discussion Moderator

> > djrosen at comcast.net

> >

> >

> >

> > -------------------------------

> > National Institute for Literacy

> > Special Topics mailing list

> > SpecialTopics at nifl.gov

> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please

> > go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics

> > Email delivered to j.vorhaus at ioe.ac.uk

> >

>

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Special Topics mailing list

> SpecialTopics at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to  

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics

> Email delivered to djrosen at comcast.net






-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
Email delivered to cherylthornett at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20080226/a5665004/attachment.html