The need for actionable feedback in assessment literacy

Researchers and teachers agree on the importance of high-quality feedback for students in order to improve their learning. Still, we have less knowledge and evidence on how teachers can provide feedback which students are able to act upon, what could be understood as actionable feedback in assessment literacy.

In the first article in this special issue, Van Der Kleij and Adie (this issue) have examined how secondary teachers’ oral feedback in whole-class interactions is received, perceived and acted upon by students to enhance the learning in Mathematics and English classrooms in Australia. It is a timely study, as although we have substantial research evidence suggesting feedback can enhance students’ learning (Lipnevich et al., 2016; Shute, 2008), we have less empirical research looking into how students perceive and act upon the feedback. In the current study, the authors have asked teachers and students to watch a video-recorded segment of classroom interaction and identify what they perceived as feedback and then interviewed them about their reactions. Although the study is small scale with respect to being conducted in only two classes in one school with a total of 30 students, the case study offers rich data through video analysis and follow-up interviews and a helpful detailed coding scheme of feedback strategies used by the teachers and feedback interactions between students and their teachers. Such research designs are rarely published and offer more in-depth understanding of the processes in classroom interactions. One of the very interesting findings is that despite the fact teachers and students watched the same videos, over a third of the feedback incidents identified by the teachers, were not picked up and recognised by the students (39% in English and 33% in mathematics). The mismatch between students and teachers was particularly found in Mathematics with respect to questioning, where students had not identified the events as feedback. On the other hand, some students had also identified strategies as feedback, when teachers had not. In English lessons, interviewed students explained that although questioning could be a helpful strategy, it could also be experienced as unhelpful if students were not able to distil the key points from a discussion. The authors point to the need for teachers to balance the challenging act of constructing knowledge through feedback dialogues with their students and using explicit instruction strategies to make sure students understand the main points to learn.

In the second article, Taylor et al. (this issue) have also investigated feedback processes, but their study is a large-scale study examining written feedback in the form of teacher marking of student works, with a total of 1736 student science activities within 83 seventh-grade classrooms in 57 schools in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Three researchers collected and analysed students’ science notebooks and developed codes based upon previous research. Codes covered the teachers’ marking comments based upon categories such as Expressive, Praise, Student Response and Direct and Indirect Feedback. The article offers new knowledge of marking practices in science classes in Argentina, and also raised a concern of the written feedback provided, as the researchers specifically identified how much of the marking was perceived as ‘low teacher guidance’. Comments mainly emphasised spelling, punctuation and grammar, and were overall very short in nature. Another finding is the complete lack of student-written responses to marking, which again begs the question of what students are able to learn from all the work teachers have done in the marking process. The research team calls for more empirical research investigating how students act upon written feedback and encourages research on how to enhance teachers’ assessment literacy in Argentina.

The third article in this issue by Jeantheau and Johnson (this issue) is a country profile of France, looking at the recent assessment and innovation reform in the country. The authors explain that the two last decades have seen fast-moving with whole-scale changes, adapting to the international trends triggered by the global impact of international attainment surveys, EU initiatives and increasingly burdensome examination logistics. They particularly outline one of the most dramatic reforms, which concerns the ‘baccalauréat’, which now sees a reduced subject profile for formal examination achievements. France has also introduced a new accountability-focused monitoring programme, which also includes online student testing in key socle domains at target grades. Ambitious plans are now carried out to include online testing into the primary sector. For the moment, France has no dependable and directly comparable national attainment data, which would have been compared with the results from studies such as PIRLS and TIMSS. The authors note that the reforms have been complex and impressive, but also note that the politicians have had the courage – or rashness – to risk eradicating a centuries-old tradition with the ‘baccalauréat’. In their own words:

The reform of the baccalauréat général represents a particularly important event, whose impact both within France itself and internationally will be interesting to follow.(Jeantheau & Johnson, this issue)

Finally, we publish a book review written by Krishnasamy (this issue), on Teacher learning with classroom assessment: perspectives from Asia Pacific, edited by Heng Jiang and Mary F. Hill. In the review, Krishnasamy writes the current book addresses a gap in the literature, as there are few studies of teacher learning in the process of implementing classroom assessment. Books previously published tend to come from the West, and very few have outlined the Asia Pacific region. The book provides an overview of how assessment practices are helping both students and teachers to learn through narratives from a range of contexts. The book offers unique contributions, such as chapter 3 from Nauru, where Nauruan students speak in Naruan, while writing in English, and where their teachers obtain their teacher education from a programme partly supported by New Zealand and Australia. The chapter outlines how teachers adapt their practices which has been influenced by Westernised context, which values autonomy, for Naruan students who have been brought up to respectfully listen to their elders. Following chapters describe case studies from India, China and Japan, with examples of how teachers tackle challenges around large classes and how to address the individual students’ learning needs. The book review also mentions the fact that chapters cover different subjects, such as the teaching of English and Music in Singapore, with insight in how the different subjects have an impact on how teachers view their own assessment practices. Krishnasamy emphasises that one of the strengths of the book is the variety of countries presented, but also suggests it would be of interest to have had the teachers included as authors for some of the chapters, as the book is written by researchers only and teachers’ voices are seldom included.

Changes in the editorial board

It is with great sadness we inform our readers that Professor Harvey Goldstein, Executive Editor of this journal, passed away 9 April 2020, at the age of 80. Harvey has been a long-term member of this journal, previous Lead Editor and served as a member of the Editorial Board until he died. In his honour, we have published a separate tribute to him in this issue, Harvey Goldstein – A tribute and appreciation. We are thankful for having known him and for what he contributed to the field of educational assessment. He will be missed, but his legacy will live on.