Standardized tests are becoming increasingly influential across OECD countries, including Canada and the United States (Mons, 2013). While large-scale tests provide important information on system performance, many studies have revealed their potential negative impact on teachers’ practice (e. g., Koretz, 2017). Indeed, when teachers are confronted with recurrent external assessments, they can question their own skills and priorities in assessing students’ learning (Malet, 2015; Osborn, 2006). Concerningly, an overemphasis on large-scale, standardized tests can result in assessment being understood as a purely technical process rather than one in which teachers have professional autonomy and capacity to leverage their assessment literacy to effectively support and assess student learning. It is necessary to highlight and promote the essential role of teachers’ classroom assessment practices, in order to provide assessment information that is responsive to local classroom learning and student diversity. One approach to supporting teachers’ classroom assessment practices is to invite teachers to reconsider fundamental questions about their assessment practice.
Back to Fundamental Questions
In 2005, Gauthier, Mellouki, Bissonnette, and Richard published a review of research on effective schools and the academic achievement of at-risk students in North America. They showed that “curriculum alignment has great potential to improve the quality of teaching and school effectiveness” (p. 28). In short, increasing alignment between the intended, enacted, and assessed curriculum leads to greater gains in teaching quality and school outcomes.
In practical terms, revisiting the importance of alignment requires teachers to reconsider essential questions driving their classroom assessments (Anderson, 2002).
- Do assessments map onto the objectives of the intended and enacted curriculum? Is there over- or under-representation of certain objectives?
- To what extent—and how—are curriculum objectives assessed?
- How closely aligned are classroom assessments to students’ learning experiences?
- Are students sufficiently prepared for assessments?
- How do the learning environment and assessments respond to students’ diverse ways of knowing and learning?
Significant Effects on Practices
Substantial research confirms that considering curricular and assessment alignment is often neglected in practice and that a lack of alignment creates assessment biases that disrupt students’ learning (Biggs, 2003; Bateman, Taylor, Janik, and Logan, 2009). Fortunately, by using these questions, teachers can begin to consider alignment and gain positive benefits to their practice:
- Fewer normative assessment practices;
- Close links between what has been learned and what is being assessed;
- Assessment practices more oriented toward the certification of learning than towards behavioural aspects;
- Greater ability for teachers to justify their assessment decisions;
- Increased acuity in understanding standardized test models; and
- Decreased “teaching to the test” effects.
Our own research confirms these results. However, when presented to teachers, curriculum alignment seems, at first, simple to understand.
Yet, through a training-based study, it became evident that purposefully considering alignment led to profound reflections and changes to teacher practice. In particular, teachers reconsidered the role of assessment in their teaching, and importantly, challenged habits of assessment practice to reposition assessment in response to student learning. Moreover, their professional judgements were grounded in evidence of learning that explicitly connected to curriculum expectations (Pasquini, 2019).
Setting a New Challenge
The challenge before us is to empower teachers to take control of their assessment practices in the face of standardized testing effects. To do this, we suggest supporting teachers’ reflective professional learning about the alignment of assessment, teaching, and learning. Responding to this challenge is essential as promoting student success is best achieved through teachers’ classroom practices including their approach to assessment. Pairing a reflective approach to professional development and practice with collaborative learning, including collaborative inquiry, has been shown to have a positive impact on teachers’ practices and to empower professional learning communities (Harris & Jones, 2010; Jones, Stall & Yarbrough, 2013). Given the rise of the standardized testing movement and the increased emphasis on assessment in schools, supporting effective and responsive classroom assessment practices has never been more important.
References
Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 255-260.
Bateman, D., Taylor, S., Janik, E., & Logan, A. (2009). Curriculum coherence and student success. Pédagogie collégiale, 22(5), 8-18.
Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructive learning. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/id477_aligning_teaching_for_constructing_ learning.pdf
Gauthier, C., Mellouki, M., Bissonnette, S., & Richard, M. (2005). Ecoles efficaces et réussite scolaire des élèves à risque. Un état de la recherche. (Rapport de recherche du Centre de recherche interuniversitaire sur la formation et la profession enseignante). Québec City, QC: CRIFPE, Université Laval.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172-181.
Jones, L., Stall, G., & Yarbrough, D. (2013). The importance of professional learning communities for school improvement. Creative Education, 4(5), 357-361.
Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Malet, R. (2015). Politiques d’accountability et devenir de la profession enseignante aux Etats-Unis. Evaluer – Journal international de Recherche en Education et Formation, 1(1), 27-44.
Mons, N. (2013). Évaluation standardisée des élèves et inégalités scolaires d’origine sociale : discours théoriques et réalité empirique. Dans C. Maroy (éd.), L’école à l’épreuve de la performance: Les politiques de régulation par les résultats (pp. 33-50). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique: De Boeck Supérieur.
Osborn, M. (2006). Changing the context of teachers’ work and professional development: an european perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 242-253.
Pasquini, R. (2019). Élargir conceptuellement le modèle de l’alignement curriculaire pour comprendre la cohérence des pratiques évaluatives sommatives notées des enseignants : enjeux et perspectives. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 42(1), 63-92.
Raphaël Pasquini
Dr. Pasquini (PhD, University of Teacher Education Sate of Vaud) is an Associate Professor specialized in summative and formative assessment. His work focuses mainly on the study of summative and grading practices. He’s involved in Swiss and European networks on these topics.
Christopher DeLuca
Dr. DeLuca (PhD, Queen’s University) is a Professor and Graduate Faculty member in Classroom Assessment at the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University. Dr. DeLuca leads the Classroom Assessment Research Team and is Director of the Queen’s Assessment and Evaluation Group.
This article is featured in the Fall 2022 issue of Canadian Teacher Magazine.