The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new assessment policy on teachers’ assessment practices in the classroom. It was hypothesized that the renewed national emphasis on assessment, and formative assessment in particular, would after some years, have resulted in visible signs of assessment for learning in the classroom.   

An exploratory case study was carried in one secondary school with a particular focus on the teachers of English in that school. The participants were the four teachers of the subject, the classes that they taught, and twenty students selected from each class that the teachers taught. Triangulation was employed to investigate teachers’ assessment practices within the classroom and teachers’ reactions, attitudes, and philosophy as expressed during a structured interview. The type of triangulation used in this research was methodological triangulation. The researcher therefore used different methods - observations and interviews in particular - on the same object of study, the teachers. The reason behind this type of triangulation was to compare and contrast the results of the two methods and increase the researcher’s confidence in the data analysis and removed certain biases or distortions which could result if one method were used. The observations yielded quantifiable data, in contrast with the non-quantifiable interview data. Using such methods helped break the “traditional barriers between the normative and the interpretive approaches, the idiographic and nomothetic…” (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p.242) and enabled the researcher to draw on two sources of data to compare and contrast the actions with the attitudes, beliefs and values of educational assessment held by teachers.

A series of structured classroom observations was conducted primarily to systematically observe teachers’ formative assessment processes,  the results of which revealed current practices, and ultimately used to confirm or question the teachers’ and students’ beliefs and responses when interviewed. The four teachers of English within the school were observed giving a lesson. The observer took a non-participant role.  

A structured classroom observation schedule was devised based on Torrance and Pryor (1998), to systematically record observations and establish and analyse the pattern of formative assessment activity within the classrooms. Observations were audio taped for reference and confirmation purposes.

 

This schedule adopted an event sampling method of data gathering, and was chosen on the basis of its reliability, extreme relevance to this research, objectivity and logic. Methodological triangulation required the usage of the same checklist on different occasions (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p.236).

 

Following the classroom observations, face-to-face fully structured interviews were also conducted. The chosen data-gathering method offered the researcher the opportunity to gather information and understand the different but interdependent functions, thinking, views and opinions of the main implementers within the concerned researched area.

 

The researched area is a new issue in Malta, thus some language barriers, such as key terminology and problems with articulating certain concepts, were anticipated. The interviews offered opportunities to address problems of misunderstandings and enabled the interviewer to achieve a degree of shared understanding among the research participants.

 

The participants – teachers and students – were chosen using the stage sampling method. This method was adopted for reinforcement and looping purposes; through the teachers’ and students’ interviews, it could be determined whether results from the observations conducted give a clear or different view from those expressed by the same participants who were in that context a few hours before. Systematic sampling was used, choosing five students for each year from Form 1 to Form 4. The sample of students observed and interviewed represent attainment levels, assessment methods and age.

 

 

The study revealed as much about teaching as it did about assessment strategies. Teachers were found to be not unsympathetic to formative assessment and thought that much of what they were doing was formative, which might suggest that the activities were having the desired impact on students’ learning. However, when teachers’ beliefs are matched against their practice, a mismatch appears. 

Both interview and observation data indicated that little good quality feedback is actually provided and it is not systematic. Feedback is provided in the form of marks. When this feedback is coupled with comments, it is viewed by teachers and students as extremely time-consuming, yet beneficial and desired. Individual feedback was considered desirable, however, in practice, reserved to those few students who ‘deserve’ or request it.

Nonetheless, these teachers view formative assessment as offering several benefits and greater satisfaction to the learners and teachers. However, these benefits are overshadowed by the limitations these teachers identified. The constraints teachers mentioned were context-specific (class sizes, discipline, school ethos, administration, students’ motivation and ability), and subject-specific (syllabus, content and time). The teachers do however desire, believe in, and request the necessary training and time, so that formative assessment could be made possible. Moreover, these teachers strongly emphasised the need of support from experts and officials in the area and that the relevant training takes into consideration their context and conditions

From this research, it was also clear that current classroom assessment practices are not subject to scrutiny. At the moment, teachers are not required to submit any justification for how they assess their students daily. In short, there is no accountability in the system as to the quality of instruction or assessment as no ongoing records of assessment are kept or requested. This renders classroom assessment irretrievable and leaves it unacknowledged.

This study indicated clearly that the teachers in this school did not employ formative assessment strategies in their practice and were unsure in their understanding of the concept and its realisation. The new assessment policy remained at policy level and measures to implement it have not materialised even five years after it was proposed. It is not unsafe to say that the school is typical of other schools since state schools generally undergo similar interventions.