This is the third episode of the five-part series about writing your professional teaching practice for the purpose of Advanced Higher Education Academy of UK fellowship application. In this episode, I will explain how I assess learning and give timely feedback to learners. References will be appended in the last episode.
To complete
the teaching-learning cycle, I administer assessment and give due feedback to my
students (Wiggins, 2012) which would be the focus and emphasis of all post-assessment learning
activities (Millar and Hames, 2003). Mindful of this
constructive alignment, I assess what I have taught. Prior to formal
assessment, a Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) standardized
diagnostic test is administered to determine and verify students’ language
proficiency insofar as the learning outcomes are concerned. Results of the test
have essentially informed what is in the learning outcomes, all my assessments therefore
must be constructed to measure my students’ language abilities in terms of
meeting the standards set in the learning outcomes. Having said this, I
pre-moderate my assessments in terms of how valid they are vis-à-vis with the
learning outcomes and how reliable they are in terms of their appropriateness
to the level of my students’ language proficiency under CEFR (Wyatt-Smith, 2010).
When
the standards are not met, I confer thereupon and point out to my students the criteria
or areas that they need to improve on as a wash
back effect of their learning. In the language courses I have taught
recently, writing, speaking and research assessments feedback is disseminated
through Moodle using Turnitin software. Coded feedback marks, including
links to self-study online resources in grammar and vocabulary, are provided. This feedback is the initial benchmark from which my student’s progress
will be generated from regularly. The mastery of a specific language skill
and the ability to strengthen their metacognitive intelligence through autonomously
reflecting on the growth of their learning are the ultimate goals of formative
feedback (Roll, I. et al, 2006).
Depending on determined
learning needs documented in formative feedback, I design my “no student left
behind” strategies for my students who are academically “at risks”. Regularly,
tutorial sessions are held to serve this purpose. However, in some cases, I
refer my students to the Polytechnic’s writing centre and/or to their academic
advisors where they are given individualized catch up sessions on their
identified personal and/or writing needs. I work collaboratively with the
centre’s tutor and/or advisor to serve this purpose. When students’
needs are at the forefront of their learning, they take ownership of it and
consequently perform better in assessments. Consistent student experience
surveys indicate perceived value on academic learning support. This informs my
practice that support should not just be limited to giving feedback.
Finally,
summative feedback is generated after the assessment and eventually given to
students to feed forward to their future assessments that will require an
extended demonstration of their working knowledge of a particular language
skill. In conjunction, post-moderation is also drawn out as benchmarks
to guide future amendments and ensure consistent quality of testing and academic advising within
the teaching and learning continuum.
Comments
Post a Comment