Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
What students say about their learning - how can this improve learning?
Dianne Smardon and Sue Bewley
The University of Waikato, New Zealand
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education,
University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Abstract
This paper reports on a project that is exploring teaching and learning through the eyes of students and
documenting changes to teacher practice that occur based on the sharing of these student perceptions. The
inquiry is situated in the work of the New Zealand Assess to Learn Professional Development Project (AtoL
PD) which is a national project that aims to improve student learning and achievement and to shift teacher
assessment knowledge, practice and beliefs through implementation of assessment for learning principles.
The ethnographic nature of the inquiry has had practical value for teachers and students because it is
concerned with their issues and problems. Teachers have been able to add to their strategies and skills
through studies of themselves, their students and teacher-student interactions (Woods, 1986). The inquiry
process provides opportunity to construct knowledge through reflection on local theories alongside more
general theories from the research literature.
The inquiry is embedded in the professional development though an observation and interview process. As
part of the professional development, classrooms and teachers of Year 1 to 13 students are visited.
Teachers are observed on at least four occasions over a two year period and a running commentary of
teacher talk is recorded on a specifically designed template. The intention is to capture as much as possible
the actual words the teacher says. Aspects of the classroom environment are also noted. Student voice is
collected through questions posed to students during lessons. These questions act as a guide and prompts
are used to gain deeper insight into the student’s response, and thinking. This process provides an
opportunity for participants to share their ‘truth’ through what is described by Woods (1981) as ‘insider
accounts’. One advantage of this process is that students have the opportunity to explore their learning
through their talk. In each classroom at least 12 students are interviewed over the two year period. To date,
1200 students have been interviewed and specific themes identified in their initial voice. In a follow up
unstructured interview, teachers examine and validate the data, set goals and plan specific actions to further
improve their practice on the basis of evidence from student voice. Further AtoL professional development
in the form of professional reading, AtoL team led dialogue and discussions focussed on assessment for
learning take place.
Consideration of student voice data seems to be a non threatening way to show teachers what their current
practice looks like and provides opportunities for them to reflect on their practice in relation to their
espoused theories of practice. The authenticity of context is significant in establishing rich data which is
perceived to be valid and useful. Student voice data creates dissonance challenging what teachers believe
about learning and how learners learn. The use of student voice data has proven to be catalytic to teacher
practice. It is motivational for teachers and they display a continuing willingness to listen to the voice of
their students and to scrutinise and reflect on their practice. Analysis of student voice indicates changes in
the nature of student responses along a continuum of indicators as teachers’ practices change. Changes in
students’ ability to talk in-depth about their learning are apparent. This inquiry supports research, such as
that of Flutter & Rudduck, (2004), Maws (2005) which indicates that consulting and listening to students is
beneficial. Analysis of data from this inquiry has advanced the AtoL PD project. The inquiry into the
benefits of talking with students for the purposes of improving student and teacher learning is ongoing. It is
however apparent that deliberate and focussed attention to what students say has the power to impact on and
improve their learning.
Why this inquiry?
Michael Fullan (1991) posed the question “What would happen if we treated the student as someone whose
opinion mattered?” This question underpins the philosophy of the professional development this inquiry is
sited within and is reflected in the collection of student voice data and the process of reflective dialogue with
the teacher as learner. Indeed who else should we ask about their learning but the learner themselves?
-1–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
In accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, U.N. General Assembly Document (see
Appendix One) articles 12 and 13 clearly indicate that students have the right to be consulted and to share
their views, in this instance about their learning, and that due consideration should be given to the comments
that they make. However we do not believe that this is the issue. The reality appears to be that in many
classrooms students are not invited to talk about, let alone think about, the notion of learning in a manner that
has any depth. Most of the dialogue appears to occur more by accident than in a deliberate, conscious and
planned manner.
Therefore the inquiry we have conducted explores teachers’ learning, through the eyes of their students, how
their practice is viewed by the students and notes the consequent changes they make to their practice based on
these student perceptions. We are finding that that the adjustments made by the teacher to their practice result
in students’ improved knowledge of:
 what they are learning
 a purpose for the learning
 how they will know they have learnt it
 what they need to do to improve or get better with this learning.
This inquiry was conducted within the context of the Assess to Learn (AtoL) Professional Development
Project which is founded on the view that effective formative assessment is embedded in a view of teaching
and learning of which it is an essential part. The principles and beliefs underpinning the AtoL project include:
 sharing learning goals with students.
 helping students to know and to recognise the standards they are aiming for
 involving students in self-assessment
 providing feedback which leads to students recognising their next steps and how to take them
 is underpinned by confidence that every student can improve
 involves both teacher and students reviewing and reflecting on assessment data.
The importance of these principles for improved student learning is discussed widely by other researchers
such as Bell and Cowie, Black and Wiliam, and Flutter and Rudduck.
Anecdotal evidence is emerging to suggest that Assessment for Learning practices may be becoming
ritualized and be better suited to particular groups of students (Webb & Jones, 2006). This is one of the
reasons why we are interested in exploring student’s perceptions of their learning and changes in these
perceptions. We would endorse the view of Alexander (2005) that working with others, where learning is
viewed as a partnership, and engaging in dialogue around their learning also supports students to develop
their learning.
Classroom observations
Classroom observation is one of a variety of professional development approaches used within AtoL to
facilitate teacher reflection on their practice and their students’ learning. Data from three or four observations
with each teacher over a period of two years has been collected, analysed and interpreted within this inquiry.
In each observation a pro forma sheet is used to record a running commentary of teacher talk capturing as
much as possible the actual words the teacher speaks (15-20 minutes). Aspects of the classroom environment
are also recorded – visibility of learning intentions, criteria, student produced work, exemplars, learning goals,
charts or displays, and evidence of differentiated learning such as grouping of students according to their
needs, for example.
Student voice is also collected during this observation time, through individual response to set questions,
recorded in most instances against the student’s name on the recording sheet. Follow up prompts were used
at the discretion of the adviser in order to elicit further information directly linked to the purpose of the
question. Teachers were invited to select students whose perceptions they might have an interest in – this was
also an intentional step to ensure teachers did not feel threatened by the process but could see that there would
be benefits for them at the outset. This was not an ad hoc process but carefully planned, the questions were
piloted and adapted to become more invitational to students.
Students were asked:
(1) ‘What do you think you are learning?’ This question is designed to establish student perception of the
learning and whether it might be the intended or unintended learning.
-2–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
(2) ‘Why do you think you are learning this?’ The purpose of this question was to establish whether the
student can make connections or see the relevance of the learning.
(3) ‘How will you know you have learnt it?’ This was asked to find out if students perceived that models,
examples, and shared criteria helped them.
(4) ‘How does your teacher help you with…?’ ’ This question is used to explore student perceptions of the
ways teachers work to support their learning and provide help. It can also elicit where the student sees the
locus of control - whether they see themselves as responsible for their own learning. More specifically,
students are asked these follow-up questions ‘How do the comments your teacher makes about your learning
help you’ and ‘What do you need to do next and how do you know?’
What the students said - Initial student voice
Many students, at all year levels, said they didn’t know what they were supposed to be learning when asked
‘What do you think you are learning?”. They responded with comments like I don’t know even when
prompted. Many had difficulty articulating what they thought they were learning. Their responses were often
short. Two typical student responses to the question ‘what do you think you are learning?’ were; stuff about
the sea and we are doing a worksheet. They would often talk about the task they were involved in rather than
the learning e.g. Find the question and then find the answer in the newspaper.
When students could talk about what they were learning there was often a mismatch between the students’
and teacher’s knowledge or interpretation of the intended learning e.g. the teacher identified the intended
learning outcome as “Why winds occur”. The student response to the question ‘What do you think you are
learning?’ was, How to predict weather using maps. Again, the student is making links to the task rather than
the learning. Even when the learning intention displayed on the whiteboard was we are learning to use
decoding strategies and read for meaning students were often not able to articulate the learning as outlined by
the teacher to the adviser.
We are interested to know how relevant students perceive the learning to be to their lives. When asked about
the purpose for learning, most students talked about this in terms of future relevance, the distant future.
Because when you are older you might need to look something up. If we want to have jobs doing that sort of
thing. Students did not attribute any relevance of the task to their own learning. One student explained, I’m
just doing it. Mrs …. said. And another said, Because my teacher said to pick something to write about. This
sense of disconnection and irrelevance was evident in their answers to the question ‘how will you know when
you’ve learned it?’ Students would often refer to an external source as the final arbiter. They construed the
teacher as the judge, explaining that they had learned something when the teacher marks it and ‘when the
teacher says’ or when We can predict the weather and get it right. One student explained that, When you are
good at them all then you could pass a test that is really hard.
Students talked about the strategies or the deliberate acts of teaching that their teachers used to help with their
learning in a generalised way. They did not appear to have a language to talk about learning or teaching.
She tells us a little bit about how to do it and She explains stuff were typical responses to the question ‘How
does your teacher help you with this learning?’ If there was this on-going dialogue would the students have
been able to better answer our question?
Discussions with teachers
Follow up discussions were held with teacher where the student voice data and their own talk were examined.
“Voice” implies singular but it is the accumulation of student voice data (student voices) that provides the
balance of evidence for teacher scrutiny. Teachers are able to compare intentions with the perceptions of the
four or five students interviewed. Through this
Figure 1
reflective discussion teachers plan actions they
will take to further improve their practice based
on the data collected and shared.
The recording form in Figure 1 was developed
to capture and formalise this reflective process
and encourage collegial discussion, supporting
teachers with the use of evidence as the basis of
-3–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
strengthening their professional learning community.
These actions become the focus for further professional reading and reflection as well as the next classroom
observation.
Due to the ethnographic nature of this inquiry it has had practical value for teachers because it is concerned
with their own issues, problems and in their terms, thus teachers can add to their strategies and skills through
the studies of themselves, their students and teacher-pupil interactions (Woods, 1986 as cited in Jones). The
intervention strategies within the process focus on enhancing teacher and student identification of appropriate
learning outcomes and the criteria for progressing towards achievement of these outcomes, the use of models
and exemplars, questioning skills, and constructive, focused feedback about the learning. Examination of
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge may underpin this.
This sharing, analysis and discussion of student voice between AtoL advisers and teachers supported the
planning of teacher actions e.g. to involve students more in talking about their learning. These actions were
the focus of our next visit where observational data and student voice was again collected.
Through analysis of the data the AtoL team identified changes to practice made by teachers. These have been
collated under the following three themes: Making connections; Making learning intentions explicit;
Involving students in dialogue about learning.
What the teachers did
Making Connections
Teachers made changes to planning by making links between long term, short term and daily planning. In both
their planning and teaching they were making explicit connections to previous learning with the students.
Teachers were making more frequent reference to the purpose of the learning.
Teachers were using more specific feedback to support learning e.g. What are you going to use to describe the
scene, think about phrases?
Making learning intentions explicit
As a result of observations and follow-up discussions teachers realised that for them to make learning
intentions explicit with students they needed a clear understanding of the intended learning themselves.
Teachers need to corroborate the meaning of the achievement criteria with each other. Teachers realised that
just giving criteria to the students was not enough and they explored ways of using exemplars, and involving
the students in the construction of achievement criteria for the learning.
Using the New Zealand Curriculum Exemplars with teachers to support professional learning in curriculum
content, pedagogy and assessment has also promoted team or whole school discussion about curriculum
expectations and school achievement. This other layer exists in the intervention which was occurring in the
school through the professional development with the AtoL Project and the teacher’s professional learning,
dialogue with colleagues and in many instances with students.
Consequently specific learning intentions were made clearer in planning, teaching and learning. Some of the
strategies used by teachers were:
 vocalising the learning intentions more often during the learning.
 breaking the learning down and using more specific criteria.
 writing the criteria on overhead transparencies daily.
 referring to the achievement criteria throughout the lesson
 using the criteria as a teaching and learning tool.
 using examples of quality work to support the learning
 setting up opportunities for self and peer assessment.
 providing scaffolds for learning in the form of vocabulary charts to help students improve their
writing.
 developing rubrics with students using examples of work.
Through these strategies the most significant overall change has been the increased involvement of students in
learning and assessment.
Involving students in dialogue about learning
Other strategies that we saw teachers using during our subsequent visits indicated this shift towards involving
students as expert commentators. Teachers are supporting students to articulate the learning in conversations
-4–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
with peers and with the teacher. They were using mind-mapping and brainstorming to co-construct the
achievement criteria. Students were being assisted in the co-construction of achievement criteria by using
examples of quality work. Teachers were spending less time in front of the class as a whole group and were
grouping students more. This notion of involving students in dialogue about their learning is defined by Earl
as co-construction “to practice self reflection and facilitate a reflexive process in others about learning
through a collaborative dialogue” (2003).
This collaborative dialogue is recognised by Tunstall and Gipps (1996) as a practice through which students
can construct ways forward for their own learning.. This recommendation comes from research on the types
of feedback that teachers use. According to Askew and Lodge (2000) the use of feedback that is constructed
through loops of dialogue and information is the most effective. The responsibility for learning is shared with
the feedback and reflection becoming intertwined. This results in the learner reviewing their learning in the
context and also in relation to their prior experience and other knowledge.
Student voice revisited (Third or fourth classroom observation)
Our observations and discussions with students told us they had a deeper understanding of their learning and
from our analysis we have noted the following as indicators of improved learning.
The students were using the learning language Students were more articulate and eager and confident to
talk. Students could understand and were keen to respond to our questions and talk about them. They used
the language of the intended learning we are learning to write an introduction to our narratives and we are
learning about elements and the periodic table.
The students look for and use visual clues of the learning and associated criteria. There was correlation
between the students understanding of the intended learning and the teachers learning intention e.g. teacher
learning intention written on the whiteboard said we are learning to write to keep the reader interested. An
example student response to the question What do you think you are learning? was How to make a story
interesting and not just long and boring?
The students were more able to link the learning to themselves (immediacy of relevance). One example
response to the question why do you think you are learning this was, Because if I don’t (edit) people will read
it and think it doesn’t make sense and Because I can’t do it (form letters) properly now. The use of the first
person indicates the student is able to link the learning to themselves.
Students were able to identify their own learning goals. An example response to the question what do you
need to do next? Was to use more adjectives, similes and metaphors and not drag out the plot.
Students could readily identify examples of their learning, the criteria and their response to feedback, in
their work.
Adviser. How will you know when you have learned it?
Student. By looking at my work and seeing if I have all the stuff. (The student pointed to the achievement
criteria on the board and aspects of their own work.)
Adviser. Can you show me some feedback a teacher had written in your book….what does that mean to
you?
Student. I had to get better at
Adviser. Do you think you have done that?
Student Yes… see here….
The students were less reliant on the teacher for judgements about their learning. One example student
response to the question How will you know you have learnt it? was, I’ll read it through and if I know how to
do it, I’ll know. There was evidence that students were taking more responsibility for their learning as shown
in this longitudinal example.
How does your teacher help you? One student on three different occasions (April, June, and November) said
 she says things that give us ideas
 she gives us ideas. She reads a story out loud so everyone can hear. Her comments make us think
harder.
 She’s given us ideas on the board. Bit by bit- we started it yesterday. We have time to think about
what we’re going to write.
While the student is still talking about what the teacher can do for him/her they are also talking about their
own learning through the use of the word ‘think’ in the responses.
Students were able to respond more easily to the question about how the teacher helps them and were
able to identify strategies for learning that were directly related to the learning they had identified as opposed
-5–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
to the earlier visits where students made generalized statements about how they perceived teacher
interventions that were often unrelated to the identified learning. We believe that this may indicate a higher
level of metacognition.
Analysis of shifts over time:
The ongoing process of data collection for use with teachers for their professional learning also provided a
wealth of information that could be collated across the entire project. This became phase two of the inquiry.
As a team we trialed and developed two matrices which we plotted teacher and student responses on over
several occasions to determine these shifts over time. The judgments of student and teacher voice were
moderated extensively within the AtoL team. This process of moderating was used to ensure the resulting
judgments were reasonably dependable. Typical responses of statements made by students or teachers were
also recorded as specific examples. In many instances teachers used the evidence to plot their position and
that of their students on the matrix. This was too was moderated by the advisers.
These collations are included as appendices to this paper. (Appendix Two student shifts and Appendix Three
teacher shifts). In examining the student shift graphs it was puzzling to note that the progress made from
visits one to three did not seem to be sustaining in visit 4. Further inquiry into why this might be, led to
anecdotal comments that teachers were trying “something new” in visit 4. As part of the professional
development process when teachers examined this evidence they were able to provide explanation for the
student voice responses. Partially this was relating to the degree of “comfort” they now felt with the
classroom observation process. In some instances teachers were working in different curriculum areas or
approaching their teaching in a different manner. This is an area that is worthy of further examination.
What literature is saying.
Sadler, along with Black and Wiliam, discuss the notion of students having a clear concept of the learning that
they are engaging in. If there is on-going dialogue between teachers and students using a shared language of
learning and teaching then a culture where students are not afraid to ask for help will exist (Black and Wiliam,
1998a). As discussed by Nisbet, Schuchsmith, McCallum et al this dialogue focused on the intended learning
is useful strategically for both identifying student’s difficulties with aspects of their learning and as a way of
developing their capacity to reflect on and improve their own learning. The term ‘metacognition’ refers to the
ability to think about one’s own thinking and learning processes. This capacity lies at the heart of effective
learning. (as cited in Flutter & Rudduck, 2004).
As Paul Black and his colleagues propose it is important that teachers consider the effectiveness of the
feedback they give to students. Feedback should make more explicit to pupils what precisely is involved in a
high quality piece of work and what steps they need to take to improve. At the same time it should enhance
pupil’s skills and strategies for effective learning. (Black et al, as cited in Flutter & Rudduck, p.102, 2004).
Sadler (1989) recommends that students be viewed as expert commentators on, rather than consumers of,
assessment practices.
Conclusion
So…what students say about their learning – how can this improve learning? In posing this question, the title
of the paper, the reader has been presented with evidence from a New Zealand context of teacher professional
development in an Assess to Learn Project. We would invite you to form your own conclusions.
We consider that if the ability to articulate learning is an indicative measure of learning then the changes
made by teachers have improved learning. From the evidence we have collected teachers did use the initial
student voice to make changes to their practice. The impacts of this were evident in student voice data
gathered on the second and third visits. These changes were planned and deliberate as a result of teachers
reflecting on and discussing with an adviser what their students were saying in response to the set questions.
During the subsequent discussions with the teachers there was also evidence of their thinking about how
students learn and the importance of involving students more.
The student responses in these subsequent visits are evidence of achieving learning if we believe that what
they are saying is useful for diagnostic purposes as well as being an indicator of learning.
This inquiry has been conducted over a short time frame and the dynamic, complex nature of learning makes it
difficult to measure and make claims about. There is still a need to continue with this inquiry because of the
probable impacts on teacher practice and student learning. Hattie (1998) suggests that the focus should be
-6–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
upon the greatest source of variance that can make the difference-the teacher and that there is a need to
optimise this influence in order to enhance student learning opportunities. The authenticity of context is
significant in establishing rich data which is perceived to be useful and valuable. When Lieberman and Miller
(2000) considered the changing context of teaching they identified several change forces including the “new
social realities of teaching” which require teachers to make transitions for example from teaching at the centre
to learning at the centre. This is ultimately the reason for inquiry into teaching and learning and, in this case,
assessment for learning.
As we moved our focus from shifts in teacher beliefs and practices to student response to our questions, the
conversations that resulted have led us inexorably towards the question of “How can dialogue create
opportunity for students to think and express their ideas?” However that is another paper to be presented in
the following session
This project was funded by the Ministry of Education through an Agreement with “the Contractor”. The views expressed
in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of either the Ministry or “the
Contractor”.
Thanks to Bronwen Cowie, Alister Jones, Jenny Mills, Colleen Sayer, Kim Millwood, Lisa Morresey, Jennifer Charteris,
Raelene Bennett and all the teachers involved in the AtoL Project (2005-2007) for participating in the reflective practice
that underpins this inquiry.
Appendix One Extracts from Articles
Convention on the Rights of the Child,
U.N. General Assembly Document A/RES/44/25 (12 December 1989)
Article 12,
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to
express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due
weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
Article 13
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing
or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.
-7–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Appendix Two: Shifts in student voice
Question One: Student identification of the learning
Percentage of students on each visit at each level
100
90
Level One: The student is unable
to articulate what the intended
learning is
80
70
Level Two: The student is able to
articulate aspects of the intended
learning
60
50
40
Level Three: The student is able
to articulate aspects of the
intended learning
30
20
Level Four: The student is able to
explain the intended learning
10
0
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
Question Two: Student able to explain the relevance of the learning
Percentage of students on each visit at each level
100
Level One: The student is
unable to say why they are
engaging in this learning
90
80
Level Two: The student when
prompted makes tentative links
to why they are engaging in
this learning
70
60
50
Level Three: The student is
able to say why they are
engaging in the learning
40
30
20
10
0
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
Level Four: The student makes
relevant links between their
classroom learning and
situations outside the
classroom in ways that are
personally meaningful
Question Three: Student use of achievement criteria
Percentage of students on each visit at each level
100
90
80
70
Level One: The student makes
no reference to achievement
criteria or there are no explicit
criteria to refer to
60
50
Level Two: The student makes
reference to the provided
achievement criteria
40
30
Level Three: The student
identifies and uses the criteria
for achieving the learning
20
10
0
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
Level Four: The student is able
to describe how they are using
the achievement criteria to
improve their learning
-8–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Appendix
in Conference,
teacher practice
Paper 501Three:
presentedShifts
at BERA
Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Question One: Teacher identification of the learning
Percentage of teachers on each visit at each level
100
Level One: The teacher has
not identified the intended
learning
90
80
70
Level Two: The teacher has
identified the intended
learning independent of the
students
60
50
Level Three: The teacher has
identified the intended
learning and shared this with
the students
40
30
20
10
0
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
Level Four: The teacher has
made deliberate reference to
the intended learning involving
students in a conversation
about their learning
Question Two: Teacher exploring the relevance of the learning with students
Percentage of teachers on each visit at each level
100
Level One: The teacher does not
consider how relevant the learning is
to the student
90
80
Level Two: The teacher shows they
have considered the relevance of the
learning but does not share this with
the student
70
60
Level Three: The teacher has told
the student some reasons why they
are learning this
50
40
Level Four: The teacher has
discussed and explored with the
student the relevance of the learning
to the student
30
20
10
0
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
Question Three: Teacher negotiates learning achievement criteria with the student
Percentage of teachers on each visit at each level
100
90
80
Level One: The teacher has no criteria for
achievement of the intended learning
70
Level Two: The teachere provides criteria but
this is not necessarily linked to the intended
learning or the purpose of the criteria is not
explicitly communicated
60
50
Level Three: The teahcer develops
achievement criteria supporting the learning
and shares this with the student
40
30
Level Four: The teacher continually negotiates
with the student to develop clear achievement
criteria to support and challenge the learning
20
10
0
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
-9–
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Paper 501 presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, Dialogue and Learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Paper presented at
International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology Conference, University of Durham, UK,
10-14 July 2005.
Askew, S. (2000). Feedback for Learning. Part 1. Askew, S. & Lodge, C. – Gifts, ping-pong and loops
linking feedback and learning. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/waikato/Doc?id=2002543&ppg=13
Bell, B. and Cowie, B (2001). Formative assessment and science education. (Ch. 2 A Review Of The
Relevant Literature) Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Press.
Black, P. & Wiliam D (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment,
London: King’s College, School of Education http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
Dunn, Parry & Morgan. (Southern Cross University of Australia, 2002). Seeking quality in criterion
referenced assessment. 28-30 August 2002
Earl, L (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin
Press, California
Flutter,J and Rudduck, J (2004) Consulting Pupils What’s in it for schools? London. Routledge Farmer
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P (1983). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London; New York: Tavistock.
Hattie, J (1998). What are the attributes of excellent teachers? Auckland, The University of Auckland
Johnston, P (2004) Choice Words How Our Language Affects Children’s Learning. Stenhouse Publishers,
Portland, Maine.
Jones, A. (date unknown) Key issues related to Classroom Observations. University of Waikato.
Lieberman, A. & Miller.L (2000). Teaching and Teacher Development: A New Synthesis for a New Century.
In Education for a New Era: ASCD Yearbook 2000,
Sadler, R (1998) Formative Assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: Principles, Policy
and Practice, 5(1)
Tunstall and Gipps(1996). How does your teacher help you to make your work better? Children’s
understanding of formative assessment. Curriculum journal Vol 7 No 2 Summer 1996
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). UN General Assembly Document A/RES/44/25:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm (down loaded June 2007)
Webb, M. and Jones, J. (2006). Assessment for learning transforming classroom practice. Paper presented at
BERA, Warwick University, 6-9 September, 2006.
- 10 –
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz