“If you ask people to brainstorm words to describe change, they come up with a mixture of negative and positive terms. On the one side, fear, anxiety, loss, danger, panic, disaster; on the other, exhilaration, risk-taking, excitement, improvements, energizing. For better or worse, change arouses emotions…”
Michael Fullan
Ask any educator about their assessment practice. What do you notice? What do you hear? If you look and listen intently, what is not being said aloud? The topic of assessment is a deeply personal one for most educators. They are emotionally tied up in their beliefs. Their understanding, values, and practice not only stems from what they learned in their teacher education or professional development opportunities, but also from their own experiences as a learner. What was their relationship with assessment practice? What worked for them? What didn’t? Because of this, educators can sit in a space of discomfort – the space between what I should do and what I know how to do. Or perhaps they don’t see a need for change. Assessment is therefore deeply entwined in teacher identity.
Why do I bring up teacher identity when reflecting on Lorrie Shepard’s article, The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture? As I read I was intrigued by the conversation around the legacy of the scientific measurement model of assessment in today’s classrooms. Why are we moving so slowly? Why, when we have mass amounts of research, multiple curriculum revisions, and publications in abundance are we still creeping along? We can look to the systemic structures; they are most certainly holding us back. However, a mass movement is not imminent until we can name our beliefs, dismantle our misconceptions and develop capacity for change.
Teacher Identity
In a recent conversation with a teacher colleague I asked how she has shaped her understanding of assessment. Immediately she began talking about her memories of red marks on tests, her fears of being wrong, her ability to memorize and the positive impact that had on her grades. As she continued she shared how that has led to her own insecurities when assessing her students. She has asked herself, because it worked for me, does that mean it should work for my students? Shepard states, “…the way that assessment is used in classrooms and how it is regarded by teachers and students must change” (p. 7). Both teacher identity and student identity, and their involvement with assessment has a deep impact on the progress that we make. Many of today’s educators experienced homogenous learning environments that valued right and wrong, compliance and rote learning as students. These lived experiences shape who we are as educators and Shepard reminds us, “…dominant theories of the past continue to operate as the default framework affecting and driving current practices and perspectives” (p. 4).
When we consider teacher identity we must also explore one’s belief about access to learning and inclusive pedagogy. What do we believe about learners and learning? What assumptions do we bring and what hidden biases exist? Ironically, this is an area where we can see the system changing faster than the people within it. In our recent curriculum revision in British Columbia, we have dismantled or revamped a number of courses which previously streamed our students in secondary schools. In a recent blog post, Shannon Schinkel explores the discomfort experienced by her colleagues as courses mandated change, “When levelled classes were eliminated, there was much consternation amongst English department members, and I respected the fear and frustration that came with that. No longer levelling students meant that English teachers would have quite the range of learners in their English classrooms. It would be a big, daunting shift.” This reminded me of the conversations I had within my own school with our grade 12 teachers. With concern they asked, “what will we do with our Com kids?” Our first step was to reframe and end referring to these students as “Com kids” and our next step was to unpack what we meant by “Com kids” and the assumptions we held. (Note – Com is a reference to Communications – an English course that was removed from the Ministry course guide.)
When levelled classes were eliminated, there was much consternation amongst English department members, and I respected the fear and frustration that came with that. No longer levelling students meant that English teachers would have quite the range of learners in their English classrooms. It would be a big, daunting shift.
Shannon Schinkel
When digging into the conversation, we uncovered questions about differentiating instruction. But more importantly, our teachers expressed their worries around assessing students who are at such diverse stages of learning. And here lies the rub between the legacy of test driven assessment (evaluation) and assessment for learning practice.
The Shift
Lorrie Shepard suggests that our teachers need, “…a sense of how to develop a classroom culture with learning at its center” (p. 12). No longer can we see assessment and instruction as two separate entities. This does present a challenge for many educators, especially in secondary settings, as their identity is tied into the courses they know how to teach and they continue to work in a system that asks for a grade and percent in the end. For these reasons, for some, it is hard to reshape the culture of learning in their classrooms and to see assessment as an ongoing process versus an endpoint. Furthermore, some educators may measure their own competency through their students’ grades. A paradigm shift to their assessment practice and the uncertainty of learner outcomes may cause apprehension.
In a recent seminar I participated in through the Canadian Assessment for Learning Network, a secondary Socials teacher asked the presenter, “How am I supposed to take time to teach these assessment tools and strategies when I have so much to teach and no time?” To which the presenter replied that the job of a History teacher is no longer to teach all of history, it is to teach how to learn about history. She went on to share that explicitly teaching assessment strategies, that using assessment as learning, is accomplishing this goal as you are developing thinking skills with your students. You could feel the quiet amongst the participants as they let that sink in.
Where does this leave my thinking? Reading Shepard’s article certainly caused me to think more deeply about the legacy of curriculum change and learning theory in today’s educational setting, which led to deeper thinking about the implications for change when considering teacher identity. While further movement in our understanding and practice is imperative, meaningful change is slow. Inviting educators to evaluate their beliefs, to challenge their assumptions, to shift their practice and to be comfortable in the unknown is necessary, but this change won’t happen over night. We need to continue to create safe spaces where teacher knowledge and expertise is honoured, while inviting new thinking. We can start by asking question such as, What do you believe about learning? What do you want for your students as they leave your classroom? How do your assessment practices align with what you believe? What shifts are you noticing in your learners? Safety is key as we know emotions will be aroused.
Ultimately, we must explore our truths and acknowledge that our teacher identity is a driving factor in the speed of change.
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7). Pp. 4-14.
vickisroute 