Assessment of Observed Lessons in Pre-service Teacher Training
Randi Bluestein
Oranim School of Education, Israel
randi@netvision.net.il
Deborah Morse
Gordon College of Education, Israel
deborahmorse@hotmail.com
Orly Sela
Oranim School of Education, Israel
gosela@isdn.net.il
Teacher educators are responsible for assessing the practical and theoretical aspects of pedagogical
knowledge. In the university/college classroom, we teach methodologies, approaches and techniques. In
the field, we expect our students to implement, build on and reflect upon what they have learned in the
classroom, and it is our responsibility to assess their work. Our window into their progress is through the
observations we do. Each of us finds tools for assessment which most closely reflect our beliefs about
the purpose of the observation. Each tool provides information from a slightly different perspective.
These tools can be mapped onto several different continua: analytical to holistic, formative to summative,
and other-assessed to self-assessed. We all agree that, in general, we want our students to internalize
the reflective processes we are advocating in order to facilitate their future proactive, interactive, and
retroactive decision-making. In this panel, we would like to discuss our different points of view and the
issues which involved in choosing a place on these different continua. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of assessing analytically vs. holistically? When might a teacher trainer choose summative
rather than formative assessment tools? What input should the teacher trainer have in the assessment
and what should be left to the student or dealt with collaboratively? Can the tools which are used be built
developmentally? How? These are questions which teacher-trainers grapple with as they assess
observation of pre-service teachers, and which we would like to consider in this presentation.
Randi Bluestein is a graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo and London University. She
is presently teaching methodology at Oranim College in Israel as well as consulting in the field. She has
been involved in EFL teaching and supervision since 1977.
Deborah Morse is a graduate of Adelphi University and Smith College. She presently teaches at Gordon
College in Israel, giving support to fourth year students, and teaching courses including The Teacher as
Researcher and Methodology . She has been involved in EFL teaching and supervision since 1988.
I am a teacher and teacher educator of EFL. I am a graduate of the Oranim School of Education and TelAviv University, and am currently working towards a PhD at Haifa University. I have been teaching
English in the Israeli school system since 1984, and working in teacher education since 1995.
Randi Bluestein:
I often find that my beliefs about observation of pre-service teachers are in head-on collision with what I
do in practice. I believe very strongly in formative assessment. I believe that we as teacher educators
are there to give our students support in the field; to help them build the map which will guide their own
development as teachers and navigation along that map; to facilitate their ability to make thoughtful
decisions in lessons. In order to create the rapport necessary for these goals to be attained, students
must feel at ease and free of fear. And yet, my students can finish their year’s studies only when they
have successfully displayed competence by giving a “passing” lesson, and part of my job is to choose the
way in which to make that summative decision. I believe that process is far more important than product
in the students’ teacher training. If we really want to stress development, we must create the time and
space for the dialog which will provide the foundation for construction of new knowledge. I believe that
the more students are observed, the less frightening it is. The more tools used in assessment, the less
weighty each individual tool becomes.
And yet, at most, I am able to observe my students only twice during the year. I try to use several
different tools as part of their assessment. On the one hand, I use an analytic scoring rubric which has a
threshold grade which students must attain to pass. On the other hand, I conduct feedback sessions with
the students and write them letters reflecting on the feedback discussions. I have decided to involve the
students in the building of the scoring rubric this year. I have also decided to give the cooperating
teacher responsibility for part of the student’s grade for the first time.
But is this sufficient? I am not satisfied. I would like to observe them far more. What other tools might I
be able to employ? How can I possibly lower anxiety at the same time as I am giving a grade? How can
I get a clearer picture of the students’ development? How can I support them in it? These are questions
that I hope this panel will address.
Deborah Morse:
We refer to the process that takes place after an observed lesson as feedback and assessment. Yet
rather than being synonymous, these two terms often influence each other. Can a student be open to
feedback when assessment is around the corner? On the other hand, can we give adequate
feedback without venturing into the more judgmental realm of assessment? I have struggled with this
issue and indeed my psychological role in the process for some time.
In addition, I hope that the purpose of the "debriefing" after the observed lesson is in no small part to help
the student develop tools to reflect and assess on his or her own. Therefore, any scale or reference we
use must give weight to the student's participation in the discussion. How do we assess
this? How can we quantify it?
Finally, I often get caught up in the problem of acknowledging progress vs. looking in a more summative
manner. I grapple with this issue on everything from proficiency to reflection. Is it enough that our
students are moving forward? Is there some threshold level that needs to be set? Whose timetable
do we need to reflect?
Orly Sela
An important part of my job as a teacher educator is to observe my students during their practice teaching
period, provide them with useful feedback and assess their performance. Assessment of a student’s
teaching is very complicated, and necessitates careful thinking and planning, and taking a stand
regarding several issues.
The first issue concerns holistic vs. analytical assessment. We can break up the lesson into its different
parts, assess each one separately, then add up the numbers, or we can look at the lesson as a complete
whole, and assess it as such. Although I see the merit of both positions, my tendency is to go towards the
holistic approach, as I see the lesson as being more than the sum of its parts, and I think assessment
should reflect this. The second issue concerns the formative – summative debate. On this issue I take a
very practical stand. Although I see the merits of formative assessment, it is not possible, practically
speaking, for us to observe our students more than once or twice a year, therefore, by definition, this is
summative rather than formative assessment. The third issue concerns self-assessment vs. teacher
assessment. I incorporate self-assessment as part of the reflective process I encourage and help the
students go through during the practice teaching period, but do not incorporate it into the grade. I feel that
it is a good idea to separate reflection and official academic assessment, and I believe the students feel
better about this as well.
However, not all issues regarding assessment are clear to me. I still have some dilemmas I am struggling
with, especially regarding the first issue discussed above. On the one hand I can see very clearly the
advantages of having clear criteria for assessment, thus making it less subjective and perhaps more fair.
On the other hand, I have a very strong sense of the lesson as a whole, complete entity, which cannot
and should not be broken up into bits and pieces. What to do? That may be something we can work
through together in the panel discussion.