Assessment can be defined as recognising a child’s mastery, ability and understanding before, during or after teaching (Harris and Lowe, 2018). Previously, assessment has been formally categorised into assessment for learning (AfL) and assessment of learning (AoL) however it is crucial to remember that it is dependent on how the practitioner uses a child’s work that defines it as AfL or AoL (Harlen, 2013; Black and William, 1998; Davies et al, 2012). This rationale focuses on the assessment strategies used to inform future learning, planning and progression and therefore can be described as assessment for learning (AfL). Despite the eradication of the Year 6 Science SATS in 2009 many teachers believe that measuring a child’s progression through AfL techniques appear to be more beneficial in assessing their understanding (Hodgson and Pyle, 2010; Earle, 2014). This rationale will demonstrate the advantages of questioning, discussion and self and peer assessment as successful AfL strategies. This will be supported through the use of a specific medium-term plan based around the Year 5 topic of Earth and Space (see appendix 1).
It is crucial to understand the likely progression of a child at the particular stage of scientific development (Duschl et al, 2011). By using the ‘PLAN’ assessment template the creation of this medium-term plan was possible due to a greater understanding of the National Curriculum age related expectations for Year 5 Earth and Space (ASE, 2018).
The Assessment Reform Group (2002) recognise the importance of AfL as a tool to track children’s understanding and development of a particular topic. However, AfL requires practitioners to have a clear understanding of the value of assessment to effectively support children’s progress (Mawby and Dunne, 2012). One of the most important pedagogical skills used as an effective AfL technique is the ability to use questioning to enhance a child’s learning (Hodgson and Pyle, 2010; Mawby and Dunne, 2012; Loughland and Kilpatrick, 2015). Through careful consideration of the questions posed to children the teacher is able to extract aspects of what a child understands and how to support further learning through planning (Serret and Earle, 2018). Questioning has been highlighted as a regular participant in the primary science classroom and effectively measures the understanding a child has as long as children are provided with enough time to think and answer (Van Zee et al, 2001; Hodgson and Pyle, 2010). Black and Harrison (2004) focus largely on developing a child’s deeper understanding through planned activities, moving away from factual questions that can be immediately answered. He identifies this as extending a child’s ‘conceptual learning’ (Black and Harrison, 2004;6). It is important to consider that a variety of question types can enrich a pupil’s learning playing a vital role in assessing children formatively (Serret and Earle, 2018; Mawby and Dunne, 2012; Loughland and Kilpatrick, 2015). Questioning can be seen as a major tool in assessing children throughout this medium-term plan. One example of this is the Q-Charts activity (see appendix 1: lesson 2 – activity 1). Children watch a clip without narration and record a who, what, why, when and how question triggering them to respond using their prior knowledge. This activity is repeated with the audio switched on allowing the teacher to assess progress, check for misconceptions and inform areas that need to be developed.
Talk and discussion is described as an essential tool in developing and deepening initial thoughts about a topic (Asoko and Scott, 2006; Loughland and Kilpatrick, 2015). Vygotsky (1962) and Bruner (1964) both share the ideology that the role of language and communication allows children to access and interpret the world around them deeper than they can individually. Bransford et al. (1998) supports this and argues that it is crucial that educators value socio-cultural constructivism (being able to collaboratively work with others) as a means to enhance understanding. Discussion, as an AfL opportunity allows open dialogue to occur where children take the main role in their learning (Hargreaves, 2007; Harlen, 2006; Loughland and Kilpatrick, 2015). When children take control of the discussion teachers see immediate feedback that moves thinking forward (Hargreaves, 2007). This is supported by Loughland and Kilpatrick (2015) who state that discussion provides instant feedback and often eliminates misconceptions. By beginning this medium-term plan with the ‘Odd One Out’ activity (see appendix 1 – lesson 1, activity 1) it poses an open question with no correct answer. This allows the children to openly discuss what they already know about the solar system in a relaxed setting. Millar and Hames (2002) also claim that by allowing children to discuss and talk about a topic at the beginning of a science unit it encourages them to consider their own investigations equipping them to be able to work scientifically. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Self and Peer assessment is another strategy used in schools as a tool for AfL and is considered crucial in primary science (Hodgson and Pyle, 2010). Harlen (2007) stresses the importance of children reviewing and considering the strengths and weaknesses in their own learning. As an AfL opportunity it allows children to direct the activity for the purpose of their own learning goal (Hodgson and Pyle, 2010; Loughland and Kilpatrick; 2015). Many practitioners argue that self and peer assessment allow children to become pro-active, take ownership of their learning and becoming critical scientists in the classroom (Harlen, 2006; Loughland and Kilpatrick, 2015). It is considered that children benefit far greater from knowing what they are expected to accomplish rather knowing what they need to do in a formulaic way (Harlen, 2006). By allowing children to assess their own and others learning they begin to become scientific in their investigations (Lindsay and Clark, 2001). Lindsay and Clark (2001) stress the importance and value of assessing children’s own understanding when providing feedback to their peers. Self and peer assessment can be seen in this medium-term plan by using concept mapping. Concept Mapping requires a child to record all the ideas and thoughts about a particular topic prior to and preceding the teaching (Stow, 1997). The concept mapping activity asks children to record their ideas before and after using different coloured pens to see their own progression (see appendix 1, lesson 3 – activity 1). Children then peer assess by adding to or changing somebody else’s concept map. This has been suggested to eliminate misconceptions and support a child’s understanding (Hodgson and Pyle, 2010).
In conclusion, it is evident that assessment for learning can be individually applied in the primary science classroom as an effective tool to assess children and plan for future progression. The Department of Education’s report ‘Assessing without levels’ (2013) clearly states that schools are to create their own method of assessing children’s progress. By examining the value of questioning, discussion and self and peer-assessment as methods to assess child’s learning in science, it is obvious that without this formative assessment it is almost impossible for teachers to plan for progressive learning in their science classrooms. To work scientifically the science classroom needs to see collaboration and real-life experiences which can be assessed formatively (Kelly and Stead, 2013). Whilst the abolishment of the KS2 SATS might have seen a rapid decline in Science assessment in primary schools it should encourage teachers to use AfL constantly in primary science (Hodgson and Pyle, 2010; Earle, 2014). This rationale has clearly demonstrated that when practitioners plan for primary science progression is certain when they use AfL strategies.