Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning

Abstract

This paper is based on a study of classroom practice of primary school teachers who were engaged in a programme of professional development to implement formative assessment in their classrooms. The programme sought to develop the skills and expertise of teachers to enable formative assessment to be used to support and improve the learning of students. This study examined changes in practice in these teachers’ classrooms, their students’ learning experiences, pedagogical decision‐making, and the challenges experienced by teachers and students in developing assessment for learning. Activity theory was used as an analytical tool and enabled the identification of important contradictions in the changing system that produced tensions and difficulties but also provided driving forces for change. The development of formative assessment practices was of necessity accompanied by a culture change in the complex classroom systems. For teachers change was characterised as a process of expansive learning that was motivated by a contradiction between the teachers’ beliefs about learning and the existing culture in the classroom. The change in classroom practice was enabled by the formative assessment philosophy and a range of mediating artefacts.

Introduction

Improving teacher‐student interaction through formative assessment and particularly focusing on feedback can catalyse changes in both the teacher’s role and those adopted by that teacher’s students (Black and Wiliam 2005). The study on which this paper is based set out to explore the development of formative assessment, associated changes and factors affecting those changes in the context of selected primary school classes and their teachers, thus enabling a detailed study of particular classes because each primary teacher worked with their own class most of their time. Methodologically this study set out to explore the use of activity theory for investigating these changes.

Background

In 1998, Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam published Inside the Black Box, which summarised their review and meta‐analysis of research into classroom assessment practices (Black and Wiliam 1998b). Their principal findings were that, when teachers implemented formative assessment strategies, the learning gains of the students in these teachers’ classes were significantly greater than those of control groups (Black and Wiliam 1998a). Distinguishing formative assessment from ‘routine classroom assessment’ is not straightforward but has been characterised as ‘a social interaction between teacher and pupil which is intended to have a positive impact on pupil learning, but may not’ (Torrance and Pryor 1998, 101). For some, the term formative assessment is seen to be consistent, in different guises, with both behaviourist and constructivist theories (Tunstall and Gipps 1996) so the approach towards learning will affect the nature and success of formative assessment. For Black et al. (2003), the term ‘formative’ applies not to the assessments themselves, but to the functions they serve in supporting students’ learning and providing evidence that is used to adapt the teaching to meet learning needs. Taking this functional view, successful implementation of formative assessment depends on the learning approach and teachers’ knowledge, skills and strategies that they use to carry out complex pedagogical processes. For example, Cowie and Bell (1999) identified two interacting cyclical processes of planning and interacting in which teachers plan, interpret and act to enhance students’ learning during the learning activity. Development of formative assessment in classrooms depended on the development of new tools and changes in classroom practices (Black and Wiliam 2003). Studies in primary schools in the UK showed that, while formative assessment is desirable, it is not easy for teachers to achieve (Torrance and Pryor 2001; Hall and Burke 2003). Research involving secondary teachers identified four aspects of formative assessment that were implemented successfully in classrooms and led to learning gains (Black et al. 2003). These aspects were questioning, feedback, peer and self‐assessment and the formative use of summative tests. The development of formative assessment practices with teachers led to the adoption of a new term, Assessment for Learning (AfL), that emphasised the purpose of formative assessment practices and could be used meaningfully by teachers, students and parents: ‘Assessment for learning is any assessment for which the first priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose of pupils’ learning’ (Black et al. 2003, 2). In our professional development work with teachers we have found both terms useful: ‘assessment for learning’ focuses attention on learning, is immediately meaningful and the acronym rolls off the tongue; ‘formative assessment’ can encourage teachers to examine their practices by asking: how is the practice formative?

Context

The Education Department of Jersey invited a team from King’s College London to lead a professional development programme on formative assessment for Jersey teachers. At the start of January 2004 the King’s team ran a conference for all of the teachers in Jersey, and the Jersey Actioning Formative Assessment (JAFA) Project was launched. The professional development programme followed similar principles and built on methods used previously (Black and Wiliam 2003). The JAFA initiative aimed to enable the lead teachers, who were chosen by their head teachers, to develop their own classroom practice by experimenting with formative assessment techniques and ideas and by evaluating the change through reflection and discussion with the King’s team and with each other. This was facilitated by workshops, lesson observations and discussions. The project was designed to involve all Jersey schools incrementally in four phases over four years. As the lead teachers developed their own practice, they were expected to encourage experimentation and to share their experiences with other teachers in their own and other schools, especially those involved in subsequent phases of the project.

This development has occurred alongside other initiatives being introduced to Jersey schools including Critical Skills, Cognitive Acceleration and other professional development innovations. Alongside these developments, there have been significant changes in schools’ approaches to summative assessment: Key Stage 1 and 2 Standard Attainment Tests (SATs) ¹ have been dropped in all state primary schools.

Participants

This study focused on six primary school teachers and their classes. These teachers were from six out of the eight primary schools that had taken part in the first phase of the professional development project. The other two primary schools from this phase were not included in this study because in one a lead classroom teacher had not been identified and in the other, many staff changes in the school had disrupted development.

Methods

In order to examine changes in these classes, teachers’ pedagogical decision‐making, the challenges they experienced in developing their own practice and changes in the students’ learning approaches and attitudes, a combination of structured lesson observations, structured interviews, informal discussions and scrutiny of students’ work was used. At the start of the project in March 2004 semi‐structured interviews were conducted with teachers and again in November 2005. A seven‐person team worked with the teachers and collected data on three school visits each year between March 2004 and June 2006. In order to focus on understanding and evaluating the change process and to achieve some detachment from the planning of the professional development programme, the authors who led the research were not those who planned the professional development programme and workshops. However, in developing the relationship between researchers and teachers we aimed to achieve rapport, empathy and reciprocity (Chatman 1984). Thus, discussions between researchers and teachers aimed to assist teachers in reflecting on and evaluating their own practice as well as enabling researchers to understand the teachers’ perspectives. In addition, an open‐ended perspective enabled teachers to assist in identifying research questions as well as in data collection (Johnson 1997). The seven‐person team of experienced researchers also enabled us to ‘use investigator triangulation and consider the ideas and explanations generated by additional researchers studying the research participants’ (ibid., 284).

On each school visit the researchers carried out a structured lesson observation using a pro forma, conducted informal discussions with students about their work during lessons and held a post‐lesson discussion with the teacher. Data collected included lesson plans, field‐notes of observations and notes and/or recordings from post‐lesson discussions. Field‐notes were also made during some professional development workshops. In order to give more attention to the student voice and to shed light on issues arising from lesson observations, in June 2006 three focus group interviews were held with groups of students from three of the schools.

An initial analysis of the activity system produced an outline coding framework that was used as a basis for coding interview transcripts. The software QSR NVIVO was used for the coding and analysis of data. Lesson observations and field‐notes from other discussions were written up and linked using NVIVO with the interview data to provide a rich data set. Mid‐way through the second year of the project a focus group meeting of the team was held to explore key issues emerging from lesson observations and discussions with teachers, and to compare those with themes emerging from analysis of the interview data.

The activity systems

The activity theory approach adopted for the study provides ‘a framework for understanding transformations in collective practices and organizations’ (Engeström et al. 2002, 211). For this analysis Engeström’s third generation of activity theory (Engeström 2001) was used. This incorporates principles of interacting activity systems, multi‐voicedness, historicity, a central role for contradictions as sources of change and development and the possibility of expansive transformations.

According to Engeström et al. (2002) the key to understanding activity systems is their object‐orientedness. An activity system is commonly represented graphically as a set of elements in a triangular arrangement, as shown in Figure 1. In this representation ‘the object is depicted with the help of an oval indicating that object‐oriented actions are always, explicitly or implicitly, characterized by ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense making, and potential for change’ (Engeström 2001, 134).

Figure 1 Structure of a human activity system (Engestrom 2001, 135).

We were specifically concerned with the analysis of changes in teachers’ and students’ behaviours and classroom practice associated with formative assessment and factors promoting or inhibiting these changes.

For our study of change the six primary teachers were the subjects of an activity system but defining the object was more difficult. According to Engeström et al. (2002):

the object of an activity should not be confused with either things out there in the environment or with goals. A thing out there in the environment can only become the object of an activity when it meets the needs of the actors and is invested with meaning and motivating power. The object is a cultural and collective construct which has a long historical half‐life and is typically difficult to articulate by individual participants of the activity system. The object determines the horizons of possible goals and actions which have finite and relatively short half‐lives. (214–215)

The general object of the teachers’ work was the students and their learning. The aim of the JAFA Project was to develop classroom practice by embedding formative assessment techniques and strategies that would improve students’ learning. More specifically the object may be described as classroom practice of teachers and students which was being developed towards a more ‘formative approach’, that is, one that embeds formative assessment into teaching and learning. This development was to be achieved with the help of mediating artefacts which may include a range of types including tools, signs, various kinds of representations and tools for thinking. In previous work (Black et al. 2003) and in the JAFA Project professional development sessions specific tools emerged for promoting formative assessment such as ‘traffic lights’ ² for students to indicate their understanding of a concept and ‘2 stars and a wish’ ³ as an approach to constructive feedback. Other more abstract tools, including thinking time and questioning techniques, also constitute mediating artefacts for transforming teachers’ behaviour and hence, classroom practice.

The rules in the teachers’ system included curriculum requirements, rules of this professional development initiative which included not only a commitment for teachers to develop their own practice but also to share their experiences with others in their school and to facilitate and encourage the development of other teachers’ practice. The community included the classroom community and the school but also extended to other schools, teachers involved in the project and to other members of the local community, especially the parents. Aspects of the teachers as subjects that were examined through post‐lesson discussions and interviews included their: pedagogical reasoning (Shulman 1987); epistemological stance; perceptions of students as learners; understanding of students’ needs; professional development experiences and understanding of their role. The division of labour node prompted consideration of the roles of the teacher, students and classroom assistants in the classroom community.

Previous research classified teachers as adopters of formative assessment strategies into four categories: experts, moving pioneers, static pioneers and triallers (Black et al. 2003, 28). In the present study differences in formative assessment practices were associated with the activity system of the class and its teacher rather than the teacher alone. Therefore the teachers’ behaviours varied depending on the class and the skills and understanding the students had developed. For example, when a teacher, who was expert in formative assessment approaches and had already embedded formative assessment with one class, took on a new class at the start of a year, the formative classroom practice dropped back to a previous level unless the students were already used to embedded formative assessment. We identified three levels of classroom practice associated with formative assessment (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Characteristics of classroom practice at each level.

Where classes were at Level 2 or 3, the students were able to continue to use some formative assessment strategies even in the absence of the class teachers. One school where formative assessment was being developed across the whole school commented that they found it was essential to induct supply teachers into the approach otherwise supply teachers were baffled by the behaviour of the class. Therefore it was necessary to include in our analysis at least the two interacting activity systems of the teachers and their students (see Figure 3). Here there is potential for a shared object (Engeström 2001) between the two systems as the classroom practice develops. The rules in the students’ system included expectations of behaviour and effort. Aspects of the students as subjects that were examined through observation, informal discussions and interviews included their behaviour and work, perceptions of themselves as learners and their role in their own and others’ learning.

Figure 3 Activity system in changing classrooms.

Activity systems in Level 3 classrooms

This analysis focused initially on classes whose activity had reached Level 3, as exemplified by the lesson described in Figure 4. In subsequent discussion the expansive transformations involved in reaching this level of functioning are analysed.

Figure 4 A lesson description for a class in which practice had reached Level 3.

Lesson observations revealed that the classroom practice in classes that had reached Level 3 was characterised by clear learning intentions and success criteria which acted as mediating artefacts; these were used by both teachers and students and were emphasised in various ways, such as being written on the board, listed at the top of a handout, discussed at the start of a lesson and/or continually referred to during interactions throughout the lesson. Lessons consisted of varied activities and generally alternated between paired or small group work and whole class work. The teacher regulated the learning through the two levels of management described by Perrenoud (1998, 92) as:

1. the setting up of situations which favour the interactive regulation of learning processes

2. interactive regulation of these situations.

In the example outlined in Figure 4, the teacher had planned the activities to enable a range of types of interaction that were likely to lead to learning. For example, some of the students were able to give useful feedback to each other. Other students needed much support in basing their assessment and feedback on the success criteria and here the teacher differentiated her support to provide interactive regulation of those pairs who were struggling to grasp this idea. The whole class discussions provided opportunities for the teacher and other students to model the reflection, evaluation and feedback processes and to recognise and praise appropriate interaction.

Another example shown in Figure 5 illustrates how the regulatory processes described by Perrenoud (1998) interact and highlights the importance and difficulties of planning and the need for ongoing regulation and flexibility. In this example the teacher’s expectation was that all the students would be able to interact and support each other, but as they proceeded with the task she observed that although some students were able to interact effectively on this task a significant minority was not so she changed the task.

Figure 5 An example of how regulatory processes interact.

In both of these examples the tasks had been planned to provide opportunities for students to interact, with the purpose of giving feedback to each other about their learning. The teacher’s role was to enable this type of interaction by providing models and by encouraging and supporting particularly the less capable students to develop these skills. However, in the second example the teacher found that too many students were unable to interact effectively with each other to learn without ongoing interactive regulation from her and therefore she changed the activity.

In the JAFA classrooms discussion and dialogue were particularly prevalent as mediating artefacts in classes at Level 3. The dialogue evident in Level 3 classrooms conformed to dialogue described by Bakhtin (1986) as a series of linked rejoinders that may be question and answer, assertion and objection, assertion and agreement, etc. In Bakhtin’s definition the unit of speech communication, the utterance, is delimited by the change of speaking subject and the possibility of responding to it. The response is given from the receiver’s perspective and thus, as the dialogue continues, alternative perspectives can be brought into view. As Wells, drawing on Bakhtin’s analysis suggests, by highlighting different perspectives, dialogue may lead to a deeper understanding of the topic by all concerned (Wells et al. 2006, 386). During whole class interaction, the teachers’ rejoinders generally ended in questions but it is their relationship to previous rejoinders of students that act as tools to enable dialogue. Many of the teachers’ rejoinders were why or how questions designed to encourage the students to explain their ideas more. Other rejoinders aimed to involve other students by encouraging them to respond to points made by their peers, e.g., ‘Can anyone help here?’. This is different from the initiation‐response‐feedback (IRF) model (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) that characterises much of teacher‐student interaction (Alexander 2004). In the IRF model the function of teachers’ feedback is to let the student know whether their response is right or wrong and hence it has the effect of ending the exchange and preventing dialogue.

Expectations were important in enabling successful classroom practice. Students understood that they were expected to contribute to whole class and group dialogue and they were comfortable attempting to answer any questions even when they were unsure. Typically at Level 3 a wide range of mediating artefacts were used to enable classroom interaction and learning. The professional development sessions encouraged teachers to explore and to adopt, adapt and develop mediating artefacts based on their experience and knowledge. For example, in the lesson described in Figure 4 these included self‐assessment, peer‐assessment, feedback based on two stars and a wish, learning intentions, success criteria and a range of tools to support and enable dialogue. The students understood the use of each tool or strategy without having it explained to them because their use had been modelled and developed previously.

A focus on learning intentions was important for teachers to plan the lesson at the first regulatory level (Perrenoud 1998). Several of the teachers said that they found specifying learning intentions difficult and some made this a focus of whole school development sessions where they shared planning. Success criteria made it easier for teachers to assess whether the learning intentions were achieved and to explain to the students what they were expected to learn. Peer assessment was used as a tool to help students think about the success criteria and their own achievements and hence to assist them with self‐assessment.

Dialogic tools were used by both teachers and students. Some students working in groups were able to use a form of dialogue characterised as ‘exploratory talk’ (Mercer 2000) in which group members engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas, share relevant knowledge, and are prepared to challenge each others’ ideas and to justify their challenges with reasons. Whether they were able to use this tool seemed to depend on the context. For example, in the concept mapping activity on shape and space some students were able to engage in exploratory talk whereas others talked very little and this led the teacher to abandon the activity because she knew that all the students would have been able to interact if she had planned an appropriate situation.

The teachers responded with ‘Why?’ to many statements by students and were using questions as tools to encourage students to explain their reasoning. Overall, dialogue was used frequently as a tool for revealing students’ thinking and enabling them to explore their ideas. There was a complex interplay between the use of dialogue and other mediating artefacts. This interplay and their temporal sequence was also explored by Wells (2002) who concluded that learning opportunities were considerably enhanced by combinations of other mediating artefacts and dialogue mediation. Our analysis, in line with that of Wells, suggested that dialogue and other mediating artefacts often reinforced each other to encourage student thinking. Further research and in‐depth analysis of these complex interactions within the context of assessment for learning is needed and is a focus of our ongoing work.

A crucial change in division of labour had taken place in Level 3 classrooms. Students were taking more responsibility for their own learning and supporting each other in assessing their learning. In the lesson outlined in Figure 4 in response to a question and prompting about why peer assessment helped them to move their learning forward students said:

S1. ‘Because we can learn from our partners. It helped me to think’

S2. ‘By looking at lots of comments you can work harder next time’

S3. ‘You’re learning from what other people might say’.

In some classrooms there had also been a change in the role of classroom assistants to greater involvement in development and evaluation of classroom practice, e.g., making notes during a class discussion of the type of teachers’ questions and the students responses for later discussion and evaluation with the teacher.

The rules in this professional development situation were generally supportive of teacher change. There was an expectation that teachers would explore and experiment and share their experiences. The curriculum requirements were changing as a result of the decision to drop SATs so that the curriculum did not constrain development. Nevertheless some teachers commented that the legacy of the SATs tests was a content‐heavy curriculum and a belief that they must cover all the material. This contributed to a feeling of pressure when they considered the time needed to build the classroom culture or to engage with ideas in detail rather than moving on to the next topic. The rules for the students were changing as the classroom culture changed, as is discussed in following sections.

How did classroom practice develop through the levels?

Analysis was focused on identifying contradictions between the elements in the interacting systems of the teacher in the classroom and multiple students in the classroom (see Figure 6). The activity systems for the teacher and student in the classroom were overlapping but were considered as separate but interacting systems in order to characterise and analyse the changes for both the teacher and students.

Figure 6 Activity system in changing classrooms showing major contradictions.

The changes in classroom practice were associated with what teachers described as a major change in classroom culture. All the teachers agreed that this culture change was crucial for formative assessment to be successful and those whose classes were functioning at Level 3 in particular revealed how difficult this culture change had been. This was associated with a contradiction between the culture in the existing classroom community and the new mediating artefacts, particularly peer feedback and dialogue. For example, a teacher who was struggling to develop formative assessment with his class two months into the project commented:

‘What I am trying to do and I work very hard at doing, although it’s very frustrating at times, is trying to get a culture of children saying ‘this is my learning, this is what I have to learn’ and trying to break habits that I see are non‐productive is really difficult. (Matthew)

A major tension generated by this contradiction is between the difficulty and time needed to establish an appropriate culture in the classroom community and the necessity for achieving this before formative assessment practice can develop far. Teachers described a time‐consuming process of small steps and ‘drip feed’ for developing the culture in their classroom communities. Teachers identified honesty and trust as crucial attributes of successful classroom culture that were difficult to achieve. Typically students were worried about being wrong and about how other students would perceive this. Teachers used a range of mediating artefacts to develop honesty and trust, including explaining and modelling to the whole class, praising honesty and explaining the reason for the praise, understanding the feelings and needs of individuals and responding to them. For example, Ruth described how she had explained the need for honesty to her new class in September:

In September they were worried about getting it wrong and they pretended they knew but didn’t. I had to be quite forceful and say – well now look that’s a complete waste of my time now. I really didn’t mind if you didn’t understand. I do mind that now I have to go over it again because you didn’t have the honesty. And does it matter if we don’t understand? Of course it doesn’t.

The teacher whose lesson is described in Figure 4 explained how, when she had taken over the class in September, students were switched off learning, they were not an academic class, there were several with behavioural problems and they were not supportive of each other:

for this particular class I’ve had to spend a lot of time in building a positive classroom culture, whereby they’re learning to develop the language of feedback and learning to be able to look at each other’s work and be able to see things in it that they can begin to comment about, and to actually sit and do it has taken time. … I could have given up. There was one stage around half‐term in October but I said to myself I’m going to persevere with this because I believe in it and if it works for this class it should work for any class. (Tracey)

This quotation also illustrates a contradiction between the teacher’s beliefs about learning and the existing culture in the classroom community. The realisation of this contradiction was a driving force for change. Where this contradiction was strong teachers would strive for change.

From analysis of teacher interview and lesson observation data these characteristics of the classroom culture in Level 3 classrooms can be summarised as:

• a shared belief in taking responsibility for one’s own learning

• learning orientation rather than performance orientation (Dweck 2000)

• an acceptance that mistakes and getting it wrong are an essential part of learning

• mutual support for each other’s learning

• trust that others would be supportive

• honesty about understanding, mistakes and feedback

• willingness to take risks in trying new ideas

• willingness to give and receive criticism

• a shared language of assessment and feedback

• an emphasis on dialogue and exploratory talk to support thinking

The teachers whose classes were at level 2 or 3 believed strongly that formative assessment was effective. Therefore they were prepared to persist and overcome difficulties in establishing the appropriate classroom culture. Key aspects of their beliefs about learning that were common to all these teachers were that students should take responsibility for their learning and should become reflective learners, e.g.:

I think children become better learners if they are much more deeply involved in what and how they are learning and taking on board responsibilities for how they are moving forward. (Matthew)

I am very keen to get to a situation where we have empowered the children to enter into a critical dialogue with us about their work. (Simon)

Children are more aware of achievements and what they are learning, and taking responsibility for that, which is fantastic. (Sian)

Thus, teachers had identified formative assessment as providing a philosophy of learning focused on learners taking responsibility for their learning by developing understanding of what and how they were learning through a two‐way feedback process.

All the students in Stage 3 classrooms were positive about the value of peer feedback for helping them to understand how to improve their work and ‘two stars and a wish’ served as a useful instrument for focusing their feedback:

S1. And we also do two stars and a wish. Two stars, two good things and then one thing that we could improve, on our writing, by our friends.

S2. in year five we didn’t do things like peer marking much and in year six we have done quite a lot of that, and I just think it helps me improve.

S3. Yeah, like in year five we didn’t really know what to get better on but now that we have done all this peer marking we know where we have to improve. (Ryefields Year Six students, group interview)

S1. Because we can learn from our partners. It helped me to think.

S2. By looking at lots of comments you can work harder next time.

S3. You’re learning from what other people might say. (Heatherbank Year Six students, class discussion)

For students to change their behaviour in these ways, changes in their beliefs about learning and about themselves as learners may be needed. The strength of this contradiction between the students’ beliefs about their own learning and the new classroom practice which students are expected to embrace will vary between students and is a focus of our continuing study. Early results indicate that some students prefer to work individually and to receive feedback from the teacher rather than from other students but children do adapt well so the major challenge may be for teachers to support them at both individual and group level in making this change. For example, Ruth explained how for some students explanations and modelling for the class were sufficient to change their behaviours but for others this was a very significant change associated with their self‐image, for which they needed much individual support:

There were some children who were just absolutely terrified of making a mistake and there were two children who I laughed with them and said ‘You’re wearing your I can’t hats and very soon I want you to be wearing I can hats.’ (Ruth)

For these students Ruth continued to look for opportunities to boost their self‐confidence. For example, following a peer feedback session Ruth chose a pair with limited confidence, where she had observed some supportive feedback, to explain to the class how the feedback had been useful. One student showed the error she had made with coordinates and her partner explained very clearly the nature of the error and how it had arisen.

The changing culture also generates a secondary contradiction for the students between the old classroom rules and the new rules required to sustain the new culture. Here knowledge of the history of a class is important for understanding the system. The importance of tensions generated between the old and new rules will depend on individual students and their previous learning experiences.

At an early stage in the programme there was evidence that teachers had identified a need for change and were striving to improve their teaching, for example:

The more I teach, and the more unhappy I become with my teaching, I realise that I am unhappy for several reasons because I think children need to be far more involved in what they are learning. (Matthew)

Teachers identified self‐assessment and feedback as a two‐way process between teachers and students as a key indicator of their success in developing formative assessment. For example, in this extract the teacher is explaining the kind of brief interaction she commonly now had with students to keep a check on how they were feeling about their learning (note that red refers to the traffic lights mediating artefact).

At end of lesson I might say ‘How are you feeling now?’ ‘I’m feeling red.’ ‘Well ok there’s red homework.’ … Children are confident enough to say ‘I’m feeling red’. They don’t see it as negative because they know they will get specific help. (Sian)

Teachers could ‘talk the talk’ before changes were evident in their classrooms. Several reasons for this were identified. Firstly, it is literally ‘easier said than done’. The ideas of formative assessment made sense to many teachers and they wanted to implement them in their classrooms. However, in practice some mediating artefacts were dependent on others; for example, peer assessment only works well when students have mastered dialogic tools such as exploratory talk. Many formative assessment techniques, including self‐assessment using the thumb tool ⁴ and peer assessment, would only work effectively when the classroom culture had changed. Thus the contradiction between the culture in the existing classroom community and the new mediating artefacts generated tensions which were hard for teachers to resolve.

Secondly, the changes involved changes to students’ beliefs about learning as well as their behaviours and therefore required time to develop students’ understanding of learning. For the teachers, this generated a contradiction between the old rules associated with covering the curriculum and the new rules of the development initiative.

Thirdly, the changes required teachers to draw on a very well‐developed pedagogical knowledge base during their pedagogical reasoning (Shulman 1987) while they were planning lessons and interacting with students, that is, at both the regulatory levels identified by Perrenoud. This knowledge includes content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of learners (Shulman 1987). All teachers draw on these knowledge types but empowering the students required teachers to have a very good understanding of each learner and their individual strengths and vulnerabilities. Subject related pedagogical content knowledge was also important, as identified by Black and Wiliam (2005). All the teachers claimed that formative assessment was equally applicable in all subject areas but they started developing their practice in an area that they were most comfortable with, that is, where their pedagogical content knowledge was most developed.

Fourthly, productive dialogue and questioning were not easily achieved but were important. Questioning was not an easy mediating artefact to develop partly because many teachers felt that they were already doing it and often failed to appreciate its full potential for enabling dialogue that could develop thinking. For example, a lead teacher, whose classroom was at Level 3 and who was trying to develop questioning with her colleagues, explained:

I think questioning has been difficult because everybody does it to a level. Teachers naturally question but I think a lot of the time people have ignored the fact that there hasn’t been an answer and they feed the answers in or they’re wanting a particular response so they’re answering for the children rather than saying OK let’s wait for a little bit and just see what happens. And I think people say – well I don’t need to plan questions because it’s what we do but I think if you want to move learning deeper you need to think about the kind of questions and why you are asking them. (Tracey)

Finally, a focus on the tools of formative assessment rather than its philosophy, so that the use of tools such as traffic lights and peer assessment became fixed as the object, emerged as a barrier to development. During an expansive learning cycle the object may undergo a series of transformations and the tools are also changed because they are no longer suitable for the new object (Engeström 2001; Engeström and Blackler (2005). Our findings from observations and interviews suggested that a focus on tools was necessary as a stage in development. However, where teachers saw tools as the object they failed to focus on developing the students’ understanding, approach to learning and the classroom culture. Thus the choice of mediating artefacts and their order of introduction was very important for enabling formative assessment, as will be discussed in the next section.

Choice of mediating artefacts for developing practice in formative assessment

Both in developing their own practice and encouraging their colleagues all the teachers stressed the importance of selecting a suitable mediating artefact for their starting point and of gradual ‘drip feed’ of ideas and developments. Trying to do too much too quickly was difficult for both teachers and students. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, some mediating artefacts could not be used effectively until the classroom culture had been developed. For example, one teacher tried to use ‘traffic lights’ as a tool for students to indicate their degree of understanding of concepts. However he found that students were reluctant to admit their lack of understanding so he had to adopt a different starting point.

Most teachers started in one subject with one mediating artefact. The main mediating artefacts used at the start were questioning and ‘two stars and a wish’ for written and oral feedback. In accordance with previous case studies on the KMOFAP Project, which identified that two teachers had very different but successful trajectories of change (Lee and Wiliam 2005), teachers stressed the importance of not being prescriptive about starting points and sequences of development. They also valued the importance of each teacher reviewing their own practice and changing gradually along their own planned trajectory based on continual evaluation.

‘Two stars and a wish’ emerged as a preferred mediating artefact in the early stages of development, probably because it was easy to understand and flexible in that it could be used for feedback by the teacher or other students and either for written or oral comments. A common approach, and a relatively easy starting point, was for the teacher to use this for their written feedback. Thus the main effort was at the first level of management (Perrenoud 1998) so teachers had time to think about suitable feedback while marking students’ work and could follow this up in class with as much or as little interaction as they preferred. This type of use did not create any contradictions or tensions in the activity systems as there were no particular prerequisites such as a changed classroom climate or expertise in dialogic tools. When students understood the tool, teachers went on to model its use for oral feedback in whole class discussion and gradually involved students in giving oral feedback to each other during these discussions, and then to giving peer feedback in pairs. Thus, a progression in the application of the tool was possible. Typically, students needed much teacher support and encouragement at first to focus on important aspects of learning. In support of this feedback, other useful mediating artefacts at this early stage of development were learning intentions and success criteria which enabled teachers to focus on what they expected students to learn.

English was the most common subject to start on. This was an obvious choice because out of the two subjects of maths and English on which most time was spent, English was the one that the majority of teachers were most comfortable with in terms of their pedagogic knowledge, and particularly their ability to identify learning intentions and to provide feedback as two stars and a wish.

Peer‐assessment was also hard to develop and required much modelling and supportive intervention, but it was crucial for formative practice to continue to develop and for enabling self‐assessment.

Traffic lights and the thumb tool were both used for self‐assessment. Superficially these mediating artefacts appear to be easy to introduce but unless a culture of honesty and openness about learning has been developed they actually put pressure on students and can have a negative effect.

Mediating artefacts for developing classroom culture

A range of mediating artefacts used to develop honesty and trust were discussed earlier, including explaining and modelling to the whole class and praising honesty. In addition, teachers stressed the importance of encouraging students’ pride in their learning as being crucial for developing an appropriate classroom culture. This was achieved through praise, through emphasising the importance of identifying and admitting when you are unsure and through many small steps of modelling feedback that recognised achievement, encouraged effort and regarded mistakes as an essential part of learning. For example, at the start of a science topic on types of reactions Jenny introduced a ‘traffic lights’ exercise where students worked in pairs to group science concepts according to whether they understood them, were unsure or didn’t understand them. Jenny said:

‘This will help me to know what things you know and what things you are not sure of yet.’

While they were feeding back their ideas in a whole class discussion Jenny emphasised that it did not matter if they did not know; for example:

‘Don’t be alarmed if you don’t understand’.

And at the end of the exercise she said,

What I am really pleased about is that there are things we don’t know because that means we will learn on this project.

In the following extract students from a class at Level 3 show the trust and honesty that characterises their class community:

Int. So how do you feel about assessing your friend’s work, especially if you were not entirely happy with it?

S1. Well you just write down what you think and then they say – oh yeah I will try and do that next time.

S2. Our class is not a bossy class. They say fair things but not too fair that they are like – oh that piece of work is rubbish. Like that. Say she didn’t really complete, sometimes we have maths challenges and if she didn’t complete it in time and the questions weren’t answered you can still say – I know you haven’t completed it but …

Evidence of success in developing the classroom climate was found when students not only took pride in their own learning but were proud of their peers’ achievements. For example, this teacher was talking about her class’s attitude towards Ben, a reluctant writer whose work had improved enormously.

Other children are saying ‘Have you seen Ben’s work? Have you seen what he’s done today?’ And it’s not condescending or anything. It’s a pride in the whole class and how they are evolving and he wrote two pages on the Aztecs and I thought is this the same child?? (Tracey)

Teachers explained how it was crucial for teachers themselves to be honest. For example, in the lesson used as an example earlier (Figure 5), the teacher was honest with the students when her planned activity was not achieving the expected outcomes and she stopped it, and said to the class ‘I’m going to stop this activity because it’s not working’

Expansive learning in developing formative assessment practices

Expansive learning is one of the five principles of third generation activity theory (Engeström 2001) and describes learning of new forms of activity. These do not yet exist so cannot be described in advance or taught but may arise through transformations in activity systems. According to Engeström (2001) expansive learning produces culturally new patterns of activity. Thus the transformation in the activity system of the classroom associated with formative assessment produced a change in classroom culture to one with a learning orientation (Dweck 2000) and in which mutual support, honesty, risk‐taking, trust and a shared language of assessment and feedback were established. The variety and combinations of artefacts that mediated these changes in each classroom were chosen by the teachers from their developing repertoires, using their pedagogical knowledge. Sharing of experiences between teachers within a community of inquiry (Cochran‐Smith 2003) helped to generate new ideas and approaches, to challenge existing thinking and to encourage the teachers to persevere in developing AfL in their own classrooms and schools. However, the main driving force and motivation for the teachers to persist with this challenging development was the contradiction in the activity system between the teachers’ beliefs about learning and the existing culture in the classroom community.

Conclusions

This study has explored the nature of classroom practice associated with formative assessment in primary classrooms where this approach has become embedded. In these classrooms the division of labour had changed, particularly in terms of students’ and teachers’ roles. Students were taking more responsibility for their own learning and supporting each other in assessing their learning. Teachers had orchestrated this change through their planning and intervention at two regulatory levels (Perrenoud 1998). A range of mediating artefacts was important for enabling change, including those that mediated the change in classroom culture, which was essential for embedding formative assessment.

This study has begun to characterise the nature of the development process that enabled these changes. For formative assessment to be implemented successfully a number of conditions needed to coexist or be developed. Teachers’ starting points varied in terms of their beliefs, their students’ beliefs, their repertoire of mediating artefacts and the existing culture in their classrooms. Therefore no one blueprint or trajectory for change could be identified that would be appropriate for all. Instead, an approach evolved based on teachers identifying their individual needs and priorities, joint planning, experimenting, sharing successes and failures, observations and evaluation. Teachers identified formative assessment as providing a philosophy of learning focused on learners taking responsibility for their learning by developing understanding of what and how they were learning through a two‐way feedback process. Achieving the necessary culture change in the complex system of a classroom was characterised as a process of expansive learning that was motivated by the contradiction in the activity system between the teachers’ beliefs about learning and the existing culture in the classroom. It was enabled by the formative assessment philosophy, a range of mediating artefacts and sharing and evaluation of experiences, including both successes and failures. Success depended on teachers’ determination, pedagogical knowledge and their choice of mediating artefacts.

Third generation activity theory, applied as an analytical tool for investigating the transforming systems, enabled identification of the main contradictions and the tensions they created, which produced the driving forces for change and the difficulties and challenges. In order to understand these issues we focused on two interacting systems of the teachers and their students where the shared object of classroom practice was developing by integrating formative assessment practices. These systems also interact with other systems that merit detailed study, including: interacting systems of teachers whose classes are at different levels of formative assessment practice engaging in AfL professional development workshops and collaborative endeavours; interacting systems of students where differences between their systems have only been briefly noted during the current study; and classroom assistants for whom AfL professional development workshops have recently been introduced in Jersey. Furthermore, the interactions between different types of mediating artefacts need to be investigated at a deeper level, probably by using activity theory to analyse actions in a temporal sequence (Wells 2002). The relationship between dialogue and other mediating artefacts, which we conclude is complex and varies depending on the type of activity and learning outcomes, would be especially useful to examine in greater depth.

The difficulties and resistance to bringing about culture change regarding traditional roles and assessment practices should not be underestimated. Alongside our growing understanding of these issues a number of questions, which merit further research, emerged during this study. First, the question of how whole school development of formative assessment can be enabled (Jones and Webb 2006). Secondly, how much variation is there between students in their engagement with AfL and how should teachers address this? Thirdly, is it possible to define and characterise the roles of the different mediating artefacts and their interactions within temporal sequences of actions in a way that would enable us to define the effective use of these artefacts? Finally, is it possible for all teachers to become successful formative assessment practitioners? Effective use of formative assessment did depend on teachers using their pedagogical reasoning (Shulman 1987) so inevitably some teachers will have a better knowledge base to draw on than others. In our study some teachers progressed faster than others and at the time of writing development is still continuing. The teachers found the changes a considerable challenge so to maintain the momentum for change – particularly for those at Level 1 who are not yet seeing the benefits of their efforts – is likely to depend on strong internal motivation and/or community support. Motivation for the lead teachers in this study to move with their classes from Level 1 on to Levels 2 and 3 came from the contradiction in the activity system between their beliefs about learning and the existing classroom culture; but as the development of formative assessment practices gains momentum other contradictions might emerge to provide new driving forces for change. For example, the teachers whose classes are at Level 3 were expressing concern at what would happen to the students when they went on to new classes or schools. Given our finding that development through the levels depended on the activity systems of students in the class, as well as on the teachers’ development, it is clear that in a secondary school, where teachers work with many different classes, more complex dynamics and tensions will determine change. Perhaps, for example, students themselves may contribute more actively to the driving forces for charge.

Notes on contributors

Mary Webb is senior lecturer in information technology in education at King’s College London and has researched and written extensively on pedagogy, teacher education and the use of new technologies for learning. She is author of ICT Inside the Black Box (2007, NFER Nelson).

Jane Jones is senior lecturer in modern foreign languages in education at King’s College London and has researched and written extensively on pedagogy, teacher education, comparative education and aspects of language learning across all age ranges. She is author of MFL Inside the Black Box (2007, NFER Nelson).

Notes

1. In the UK SATs refers to National Curriculum tests which, at the time of writing, were being taken by all students in England towards the end of Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 (Years 2, 6 and 9 when they are about 7, 11 and 14 years old).

2. ‘Traffic lights’ were used as coloured stickers or highlighting to indicate knowledge or understanding – green for good understanding, amber for unsure and red for no understanding.

3. ‘Two stars and a wish’ is a method of giving feedback in which two positive points are made, followed by one target for improvement.

4. Usually used as a way of signalling understanding of a concept, (thumbs up is clear, understand, horizontal shows unsure, thumbs down means no understanding).