How Clear is our Vision? 

What a sweet title for our upcoming 2020 CAfLN Conference in Edmonton Alberta! I love the pun connected to the year 2020 and the overarching reference to forward thinking and looking ahead!

When I think about clarity of vision, two quotes from Rick Stiggins (2014) come to mind:

• "Students can hit any target that they can envision and that holds still for them."
• "The learner must be given a clear vision of what success looks like from the beginning of the learning process, and this must be followed by a continuous array of self-assessments (occasions for hope) that reveal steady progress toward ultimate success. The result will be increasing confidence and a sense of personal efficacy." 

As you consider attending, what assessment questions do you have? What area of assessment are you seeking clarity in? Who are you hoping to connect with to talk about, ask questions, or dig deeper into this important work?
 
The Canadian Assessment for Learning Network holds a conference each year in a part of Canada. This year, we get to partner with the Alberta Assessment Consortium and the Conference will be held in Edmonton, Alberta. We are excited to be in the province of Alberta and to get to learn from Conference participants who come together from all over the place. We have some exciting opportunities for you to participate in and a variety of ways in which you can engage as a learner. 

We can't wait to SEE you! 

Assessment for learning in an early learning classroom is what early learning teachers do daily.  The role of the early learning teacher is to observe, listen, assess, respond with intention…and observe, listen, and assess again.  This ongoing cycle is the continuous flow of the early learning classroom where the professional guides children along the continuum of learning and development. 

The learning environment in an early learning classroom provides engaging and purposeful experiences for young learners. Children explore and play through a variety of modalities to enrich various developmental domains, such as cognitive, physical, emotional, and spiritual. As children experience their environment and the interactions with other children and adults, the educator identifies children’s strengths, interests, and skills. The professional uses this information to plan extended activities, model language development or thinking, or provides further material to enhance the learning experience. 

The continuum of early learning has developmental milestones, experiences, or outcomes like all other grades. This continuum has targets we hope our children attain during varying developmental stages of their life, such as naming body parts and colours at age 3, cutting on a straight line with scissors at age 4, or telling others how they are feeling at age 5. These milestones provide a guide for teachers to move their students’ learning forward. 

A great way for teachers to manage the assessment of children at varying levels of development is to collect documentation of their students' learning.  The documentation can be in forms of photos, anecdotal notes, journals, videos, checklists, learning stories, children’s work, and portfolios. Collecting the documentation allows the professional to review patterns, trends, or establish insights on how to respond to the student and to move learning forward. This evidence is used for assessment for learning. The beauty of this process or cycle is that it focuses on the student and what the student needs to extend or develop further. When the professional takes the time to be mindful or intentional in their assessment, they become more aware of how to provide the essential elements to engage the student in further learning. The learners also become engaged in the process when the learning is interesting, guided, and attainable.    

A high quality early learning classroom can have long-lasting impact on a child’s life. It is important that purposeful and intentional assessment decisions are made during the early years. When assessment is continuous it can inform teaching and foster improvement and better outcomes for children. 
 

Heather Braund^a, Christopher DeLuca^a, Angela Pyle^b, and Laurie Faith^b
aAssessment and Evaluation Group, Faculty of Education, Queen’s University
^bOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
 

Kindergarten is often the first formal educational experience for children across Canada and the foundation for learning in later grades. A primary objective of Kindergarten education is to encourage the development of self-regulation, leading students to become more autonomous learners (Corter, Jammohamed, & Pelletier, 2012). Self-regulation is the ability to think and behave in ways to attain identified goals (Zimmerman, 2020). Every teacher can name behaviours that demonstrate when a student is able to self-regulate such as: sitting quietly on the carpet, sharing with peers, following routines, solving a problem independently without having to call on their teacher for help, or knowing when to call for help. An element of self-regulation, called self-regulated learning, encompasses the specific behaviours and thought patterns that help a student in their learning.
 
Assessment has been recognized as one core strategy to support children in developing self-regulation skills. Specifically, the assessment practices associated with assessment for learning and assessment as learning have been linked to higher levels of students’ self-regulated learning. Assessment for learning includes practices that make learning visible for students such as naming learning through identified learning goals, providing success criteria, and engaging in ongoing questioning, monitoring, and feedback strategies that move learning forward. Assessment as learning helps students develop their metacognitive thinking and self-regulation by providing feedback on how they learn (Clark, 2012) and opportunities to practice self-regulation skills (e.g., self-assessment) (DeLuca, Pyle, Valiquette, & LaPointe-McEwan, 2020). However, while evidence underscores the connections between assessment and self-regulation, little research has focused on teachers’ assessment practices in Kindergarten, despite its importance for student learning (Pyle & DeLuca, 2013).
 
Our research examined three research questions:

1. How do kindergarten teachers understand independence and self-regulation for kindergarten learners?
2. How do kindergarten teachers understand the linkages between assessment and self-regulation in the kindergarten classroom?
3. How do kindergarten teachers implement assessment practices that promote students’ independence and self-regulation within play-based learning contexts?

 To answer these questions, we collected data from 20 Kindergarten classrooms through teacher interviews, video-recorded observations, and video-elicited interviews in Ontario. The emphasis was on capturing assessment practices during play-based learning. We looked across all data for themes and patterns, with three main patterns emerging: a) teachers’ understandings of self-regulation, b) linking self-regulated learning and assessment, and c) assessment challenges.
 
Teachers’ Understandings of Self-regulation
When sharing their understandings of self-regulation, many teachers discussed “independence”, “self-awareness”, and “problem-solving.” There was a wide variation in understandings from teachers with some better aligned with literature-based definitions and policies. Some teachers recognized important elements of self-regulations including emotional control, metacognition, social skills, and following rules. Generally, teachers expressed a common belief that play-based approaches could be used to help promote the development of independent and self-regulatory behaviours.
 
Linking Self-regulated Learning and Assessment
Assessment in kindergarten classrooms was clearly used for multiple purposes including for the construction of report cards, to better understand student abilities, and to set up developmentally appropriate provocations to encourage students to learn specific skills independently. Our observations revealed that more formal and standardized assessments were used for diagnostic purposes, which focused on academic skills (e.g., literacy and numeracy). One-on-one and small group discussions were frequently used (by 17 teachers) to assess academic learning and provide immediate feedback to students. The most common ways to collect evidence on self-regulation were observations, anecdotal notes, photographs, and videos. Six of the teachers explicitly discussed the use of assessment as learning to promote metacognitive thinking and self-regulation through open-ended questioning and engaged students in dialogues about their thinking.

Importantly, teachers in our study enacted play-pedagogies differently, leading to different opportunities to engage assessment during play-based learning. There were some teachers who were actively playing with students while collecting assessment data and naming their regulation behaviours. Whereas other teachers maintained a ‘sideline’ approach where they would sit back from the play and take notes, observe, or record the interactions. They would later make meaning from these notes and observations about the students’ self-regulation and level of independence.
 
Assessment Challenges
All teachers articulated assessment as a challenge in play-based kindergarten classrooms, especially in the context of self-regulation. Core challenges included:

• Too much observational data (largely due to the use of technology-based recording devices) and too little time to analyze or make meaning from these data;
• Sharing assessment information with students was challenging despite knowing that such conversations could propel learning; and
• Balancing the assessment of socio-personal and academic learning outcomes in the context of play-based environments.

 
Final Message
As Kindergarten teachers strive to promote self-regulation and independence in their students, assessment remains a powerful tool. Yet there is a need to continue to find ways to adapt and extend their assessment practices within the context of play-based learning to effectively contend with challenges and propel self-regulation forward.
 
Notes:
 
1. This article is a precis of a large research article: Christopher DeLuca, Angela Pyle, Heather Braund, & Laurie Faith, (2020). Leveraging assessment to promote kindergarten learners’ independence and self-regulation within play-based classrooms, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2020.1719033
 
2. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
 
 References:
 
Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205-249. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6

Corter, C., Janmohamed, Z., & Pelletier, J. (2012). Toronto First Duty Phase 3 Report. Toronto, ON.

DeLuca, C., Pyle, A., Valiquette, A., & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2020). New directions for kindergarten education: Embedding assessment in play-based learning. Elementary Schools Journal, 120(3). DOI: 138.051.012.062

Pyle, A., & DeLuca, C. (2013). Assessment in the kindergarten classroom: An empirical study of teachers' assessment approaches. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(5), 373-380.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. . In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Many of you know this feeling…
 
As you drive into school, the sun is just rising and the air is still crisp with night, but you steel yourself for the imminent fatigue at the end of the day. Your plan is simple: Students will use this day to write. Lessons before today have focused on how to write, and now it’s their turn to show what they can do. 
 
As students settle into their desks and pull out their computers, the first questions are already coming at you: 
“How many paragraphs do I need?”
“What font size do I need to use?”
“Can you look at my ideas and let me know if they’re right?”
 
You start running from student to student answering their questions and getting them started. In a few minutes, that quiet calm has descended on the class and all you hear is typing. Seconds later, hands shoot up:
“Am I doing this right?”
“Can you come see mine next?”
“I’m going to need you over here after that.”
 
You look around the class and realize how many hands are up, and how many anxious eyes you see. You do the best you can in the time you have with them, but as you leave for the day, that anticipated tiredness swoops in, and you feel like you should have done more to help.
 
These feelings of defeat are common among those of us who have taught writing to older students. As teachers, our primary inclination is to save students from failure by giving ideas and guidance. But we also know that in a few short years, these same kids will be going out into the world, and will need to be capable of monitoring their own learning. They must be prepared to give themselves feedback. However, classroom experiences of constant questions and approval-seeking can make teachers feel like we are actually setting students up for failure in these much more important, life long, skills.
 
Enter the power of student ownership of the formative assessment process. Last year I came across the new book, Developing Assessment-Capable Visible Learners (Frey, Hattie and Fisher, 2018) that outlines five characteristics students need in order to take on the ownership of learning. These characteristics are:

1. I Know Where I’m Going
2. I Have The Tools For My Journey
3. I Monitor My Progress
4. I Recognize When I’m Ready for What’s Next
5. I Know What To Do Next

 After my previous experiences with writing, I was eager to try these out. My first attempt at having students develop these characteristics was with a Story Writing unit in a grade 9 Language Arts class. I took additional idea from Penny Kittle and Kelly Gallagher’s book 180 days (2018) to walk students through this process. Here is how the two connected:

1. Students viewed models to help them identify elements of successful writing and give guidance to their own attempts. 
2. Students built their writing ‘tool kits’ by choosing and practicing their favourite techniques from the variety of models they saw.
3. Students created pieces of writing that increased in size and complexity, starting with a short memory, then onto a short scene, and finishing with a story with multiple scenes. In this way, they practiced the success criteria multiple times so that when it came to their final product, they were capable of monitoring their own progress towards successful story writing. 
4. Students did not move on to the next piece of writing until they were successful in the previous attempt. This understanding of success came from teacher, peer and self-feedback based on their previous experience with models, shared writing, and a form of learning map based on the work of Shelley Moore (2020). 
5. Because of the sheer amount of models and practice, as well as the learning map, students were able to know what to do to refine and improve their writing, no matter their current skill level with writing.

 By bringing these three resources together, my students' writing drastically improved. Many who had claimed earlier that they were ‘not good at writing’ created pieces that were filled with emotion and descriptive imagery. I still got some of the same questions from before, but as we went through the process, students experimented more with their own writing style and found their own voice. I was able to give better, individualized, feedback. And, when it came to summative evaluation, I did not get bored reading similar stories! They were all different, and yet all met the success criteria we set out. And, as an added bonus, students were eager to share this writing with their parents during interview nights.
 
I am definitely still learning how best to develop these characteristics in my students. While there are some things I might change next time, this process has forever affected the way I teach writing. Students were able to practice the skill of taking ownership of their learning, and I know they will be better for it. Not only was it better for students, and resulted in better outcomes, it was easier for me both during our class time and during the summative process. I would encourage everyone to look at these resources and see what they might do for your students as they take more ownership of their learning in your classrooms. 
 
Works Cited:
 
Frey, F., Hattie, J., Fisher, D. (2018) Developing assessment capable visible learners. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
 
Moore, S. (2020) Teaching and empowering all students. Retrieved from: https://blogsomemoore.com/learning-maps/
 
Kittle, P., & Gallagher, K. (2018) 180 Days. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

***Please note that this article is the second of two, shared through the CAfLN newsletter. The first article described equity in the context of the mathematics classroom. The need for formative assessment is paramount when striving for equitable instruction. The article concluded with the assertion that the differences between formative and summative assessment are timing, audience and purpose. Thus, educators may adopt formative assessment strategies for summative assessment.***
 
Just as differentiating instruction promotes equity so, too, does differentiating summative assessment.  Differentiation may be considered in terms of product, process, environment or content.  With regards to the exploration of differentiation in this article, the scope of differentiation is limited to product.  When one considers product and assessment, one must hold the perspective that the triangulation of data – observations, conversations and products – “increases the reliability and validity of the evaluation of student learning” (2010, p. 39) and that the overarching purpose of assessment is to gain insight and understanding into what a student knows and does not yet know.  Although it is still common practice in many mathematics classrooms, Even (2005, p. 47) asserts that it is no longer acceptable practice to conduct summative assessment as a ‘one-time event’ nor rely solely on pen and paper tasks to make a professional judgement:

The contemporary view that assessment should be an integral part of instruction, combined with disappointment from the limited information received from traditional paper-and-pencil mathematics tests, entails the use of assessment methods, tools, and techniques different from those common to traditional assessment.  Consequently, in addition to paper-and-pencil tests administered at specific times, contemporary assessment uses a combination of various assessment methods and tools that… provide a more comprehensive, rich, and multi-dimensional account of what students know and understand…

When educators institute rigid conditions or parameters, students may be prevented from fully demonstrating their understanding.  Many educators would agree but may be less inclined to agree that this is true in the mathematics classroom as much mathematics instruction still remains steeped in abstraction and symbolism rather than grounded in manipulatives, models, conversations, multiples strategies and multiple ways of knowing.  Acknowledging that one can limit students’ demonstration of understanding simultaneously allows one to recognize that it is critical to differentiate when engaging in summative assessment.  White (2017, p. 143-144) refers to this as assessment agility:

There is additional flexibility when we open up the learning space even further and consider the context in which students demonstrate learning.  We may choose to offer a written test, but many learning goals do not specify written responses.  We may, instead, decide to hold individual conferences with students where they are invited to orally express their understanding… our observations may be the most useful way of determining proficiency.  Summative assessment has a hard edge when we feel compelled to always give a written test, but our learners’ understanding is not fully captured when assessed this way.  
 
If assessment agility is interpreted as an ability to differentiate when assessing and differentiation leads to equity, differentiating summative assessment is essential in ensuring equity in the mathematics classroom.
 
Tools to Differentiate Summative Assessment
 
After many attempts to find tools for documenting conversations and observations and, ultimately, differentiating summative assessment on the internet, I came to the conclusion that I must develop them.  After much thought, I realized that I could make a checklist from many of the Level 3 indicators from the analytical rubrics developed by the school division in which I am employed.  I ‘mined’ the Level 3 (grade-level) indicators for observables as well as indicators which lent themselves well to conversations.  Typically, these were indicators with verbs such as ‘explain,’ ‘justify’ or ‘verify.’  It was my belief that creating a checklist would allow for efficiency when documenting while still maintaining the integrity of the rubric.  Maintaining the integrity of the rubric would also minimize subjectivity, one of the major concerns when using conversations and observations as assessment.

Listed below are some key points considered when designing the documentation tools:

•    One of the limitations of pencil-and-paper tasks is the fact that a teacher often assesses the work after rather than in the moment.  A teacher may feel that an answer is incomplete but they are forced to assess only what is on the paper.  In comparison, if a teacher feels that an answer is incomplete during a conversation or observation, they can simply provide a prompt to the student to ‘dig deeper.’  Doing so, provides a more accurate depiction of what the student actually knows and understands. 
•    It is not necessary to observe every indicator given on the tools.  Pencil-and-paper tasks may be used as well.  They are simply provided as an option.
•    Spending too much time documenting learning prevents the teacher from responding and moving learning forward if necessary.  As noted, this was the reasoning behind the format of the checklist.  However, space has been provided if additional comments are necessary.
•    Listing all of the indicators at the top of the tool is intended to aid teachers’ responses in learning moving forward.  The indicators become progressively more challenging as one moves through the list.  Thus, if a teacher observes a learning behaviour, the flow of the learning is not interrupted because the teacher can simply look to the top of the top of the document and ask the student for that behavior or begin scaffolding the student’s learning to reach that behavior.
•    The tools were created in Microsoft Word.  The tools remain as Word documents, rather than PDF’s, so that teachers can make slight modifications to suit their teaching style.  
 

 

 
Three curious teacher educators from different B.C. universities connected serendipitously at last year’s Canadian Assessment for Learning Network Conference in Delta, B.C. Coffee dates and email introductions led them to discover shared beliefs around the need for increased discourse around Assessment for Learning (AfL) and Imaginative Education (IE) in higher education. Kaser and Halbert (2017) suggest that isolated efforts to make a difference, no matter how well-intentioned, are not enough to make a lasting difference in our complex education system. Believing that learning together is better than learning alone and teamwork is essential to deepen and spread learning, they formed a collaborative inquiry team. 
 
Key stages of the Spiral of Inquiry (SOI) framework are guiding Christine Ho Younghusband, Gillian Judson, and Nina Pak Lui through an exploration of their own assessment practices in higher education. The entry point that made the most sense for their inquiry was starting with what’s going on for their learners (students and faculty). Gaining evidence through narratives, reflections, conversations, and observations, the inquiry team developed a HUNCH and laid out on the table the following assumptions: 

• Students in post-secondary are unfamiliar with Assessment for Learning (AfL).
• Students in post-secondary experience assessment practices that tend to be outcome-based and focused on summative assessment.
• Faculty members in post-secondary institutions are unfamiliar with AfL and its effects on learners and learning.
• Faculty members do not understand AfL as a reflection of pedagogy.
• Students are not always familiar with the learning intentions in their courses.
• Students in education are experiencing paradigm shifts in their thinking when AfL strategies are introduced to them.

Using information from their SCAN and HUNCH, the inquiry team identified an overarching FOCUS that they can work on together:
 
How do we create space for assessment for learning in post-secondary? And how do we make those assessments emotionally and imaginatively engaging for students?
 
Dr. Christine Ho Younghusband is an Assistant Professor at the University of Northern British Columbia in the School of Education. She teaches courses in the Teacher Education program and the Master of Education program. Her interest in this inquiry is to find imaginative ways to embed formative assessment strategies into her courses. Based on her research, she hypothesizes that teachers tend not to teach what they have not learned or experienced as learners. How do we get teacher candidates to understand Assessment for Learning as a learner but also as a teacher? The learning experience must have a significant impact on teacher candidates to transfer and apply what they have experienced in their practice.
 
Dr. Gillian Judson is a Lecturer at Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Education. Primarily she works with graduate students studying in SFU’s Curriculum and Instruction Master of Education program on Imaginative Education (IE). She is also the Executive Director of SFU’s Center for Imagination in Research, Culture, and Education (CIRCE). For this inquiry, Gillian is interested in working with colleagues in faculties outside of education to design, implement and critically reflect on AfL practices that employ “cognitive tools”-- that is, that are designed to engage emotion and imagination in learning. She anticipates that this inquiry process will deepen and expand her understanding of what helps or hinders the practice of AfL in the post-secondary context. What’s the relationship between IE and AFL? When Assessment for Learning drives teaching, can we better support the growth of students’ imaginations? How can Assessment for Learning and Imaginative Education deepen learning? How can the combination be transformational?
 
Nina Pak Lui is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at Trinity Western University. She teaches undergraduate education courses and oversees the initial classroom experiences. She recently joined the university’s Core Assessment Team; together they lead professional learning seminars for faculty members across disciplines. Nina is interested in how IE can inform the design of assessment strategies and how intentional AfL impacts learning in the post-secondary context. In what ways does experiencing Assessment for Learning and Imaginative Education in teacher education shape pedagogical beliefs and commitments of future teachers? How does connecting formative and summative assessment practices increase the value of Assessment for Learning among faculty and students in higher education?
 
Each researcher in this inquiry team is a principal investigator at their respective institutions, and they are documenting reflections of the intentional enactment of AfL and IE in their courses, beginning in the Fall semester of 2019. They are thinking holistically, with the intention of bridging and applying AfL and IE flexibly and creatively in their respective inquiry projects. Although contexts are similar and different, they believe that comparing and contrasting data collectively during the data analysis process will lead to varied perspectives; insights that will make significant contributions to teacher education and the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.
 
As a unified inquiry team, Christine, Gillian, and Nina are staying curious about current research evidence and how it applies to learners in their post-secondary context. They are remaining open to new learning and taking informed action, guided by the key stages from the SOI framework. There is a shift happening in K to 12 education; leaders with growth mindsets are moving towards a focus on deeper forms of learning and assessment for learning. This inquiry team sees a need to investigate this phenomena and possibly  increase the value of AfL and IE in higher education by providing evidence of their effectiveness on creating deep and transformational learning experiences in the post-secondary context.
 
REFERENCE
 
Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2017). The Spiral Playbook: Learning with an inquiring mindset in school systems and schools. Toronto: ON: C21 Canada.