I recently finished teaching a course focusing on learners’ literacy practices and the assessment thereof. This course was part of an intensive teacher education program held by a research-intensive university. Although this course was of great benefit to the teacher candidates and myself in many ways, I can’t help but look back on the experience with confusion. This particular course regarding literacy and assessment occurs at the tail end of the program wherein teacher candidates have already completed the majority of coursework as well as substantial time in practicum.

The teacher candidates, though a bit weary from their time in practicum, were a spirited, lively, and passionate group. I considered myself lucky to have been given such a great group of students: all willing and eager to learn. Early in the course, however, it became increasingly clear that few of the teacher candidates had experience with language learners in a content-based classroom setting, or with literacies as plural and multidimensional. The focus of this course is the intentional broadening of understanding what literacy is, what it looks like, and how to assess it, however, student-generated discussion regularly centered on ways in which these broader understandings of literacies are useful for language learners in particular. I was happy to see that the teacher candidates were committed to adapting their own practices to better meet the needs of language learners, yet disheartened that the same connections weren’t being so widely recognized to be beneficial for all learners despite first or second language proficiency.

By the end of the course, the teacher candidates were comfortable with plural and multidimensional conceptions of literacy, but they were still hesitant to measure it. The significance in multiliteracies and new literacies approaches to teaching is that student knowledge, learning, design, and expertise is both recognized and valued. How can grades be a more accurate representation of student learning? How can we value something that we are not willing to qualify?

Adapting our practices and broadening our views are all well and good, but if we resist assessing them, or even discussing assessment altogether, we are doing our students a great disservice. Summative assessment alone is not capable of recognizing and/or valuing the complexities of the learning process (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Consequently, I often explicitly directed attention toward assessment and the need for intentional alignment with learning objectives and the inclusion of process-oriented formative assessment techniques regardless of subject matter. However, when it came to discussing measurement and numbers, I was surprised that the teacher candidates were uncomfortable including the results of their formative assessments in learners’ overall grades. I found this perplexing to say the least. When formative assessments are not included in grades, the learning process is detached from learners’ resulting achievement. What we are left with is summative assessment, and diagnostic assessment disguised as formative assessment methods and best practices.

Assessment has become an add-on at the end of a program, rather than the focus. After completing all foundational coursework and practicums, I still had teacher candidates say, “it makes me realize that I wish I knew much more about assessment.” There were 10 sections of the course that I taught running concurrently and only 1 week out of 6 was dedicated to issues surrounding assessment. This lack of training is further evidenced by research conducted in contemporary classrooms (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007; McGee & Colby, 2014; Volante & Fazio, 2007) as well as in my own research conducted in early 2016, during which I observed that when formative assessment techniques were applied in the classroom, they were used for diagnostic or coaching purposes and not assessment itself. Nonetheless, everything in education connects back to assessment, and there is clearly not enough training provided in teacher education programs; in truth, assessment is at the core of our education system.

Existing research tells us that best practices include formative assessments, but how much attention is directly focused on providing teachers with much needed formative assessment knowledge, techniques, hands-on practice, or even mentorship? Both preservice and in-service teachers alike need to continue developing their classroom assessment practices. They also need to be provided the opportunity to better develop these practices prior to and during time in the classroom. What we need now is assessment with design and purpose alongside just assessment practices. In this way, grades themselves will be a more accurate representation of the learners rather than a summative snapshot of achievement.

After experiencing a teacher education program from behind the scenes and from an instructor’s perspective, I am even more convinced that a fair and just education system hinges on authentic assessment. Assessment lies at the heart of a just education system. It has been a taken-for-granted school activity for far too long. Formative assessment needs to be implemented, and it needs to count. It’s time to move forward.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002

McGee, J., & Colby, S. (2014). Impact of an assessment course on teacher candidates’ assessment literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 36(5–6), 522–532. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2014.977753

Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749–770. doi: 10.2307/20466661

Angela Moon is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia who devotes her scholarship to social justice in education. Her current research aims to examine the contribution of classroom assessment practices on Canadian rural learners’ access to institutional capital. Her research interests include classroom assessment, multimodality, literacy education, the sociology of education, and critical inquiry.