Exploring Formative Assessment Using Cultural Historical Activity Theory

Abstract

Formative assessment is a pedagogic practice that has been the subject of much research and debate, as to how it can be used most effectively to deliver enhanced student learning in the higher education setting. Often described as a complex concept it embraces activities that range from facilitating students understanding of assessment standards, to providing formative feedback on their work; from very informal opportunities of engaging in conversations, to the very formal process of submitting drafts of work. This study aims to show how cultural historical activity theory can be used as a qualitative analysis framework to explore the complexities of formative assessment as it is used in higher education. The original data for the research was collected in 2008 by semi structured interviews and analysed using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. For this present paper three selected transcripts were re-examined, using a case study approach that sought to understand and compare the perceptions of five academic staff, from three distinct subject areas taught within a UK university. It is proposed that using activity theory can provide insight into the complexity of such experiences, about what teachers do and why, and the influence of the community in which they are situated. Individually the cases from each subject area were analysed using activity theory exploring how the mediating artefacts of formative assessment were used; the often implicit rules that governed their use and the roles of teachers and students within the local subject community. The analysis also considered the influence each aspect of the unit of activity had on the other in understanding formative assessment practice. Subsequently the three subject cases were compared and contrasted. The findings illuminate a variety of practices, including how students and staff engage together in formative assessment activities and for some, how dialogue is used as one of the key tools to do this. In conclusion, activity theory is considered a useful methodological framework both from a research perspective, as in this paper, and one that can be used as a tool for the reflective practitioner to promote change in pedagogic practices

Keywords

• CHAT
• Activity theory
• Dialogue
• Formative assessment

Kaynakça

1. Asghar, M. (2012) The lived experience of formative assessment in a British university, The Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(2), 205-224.
2. Bohm, D (1996) On dialogue. London: Routledge.
3. Boud, D. (2007) Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In Boud, D. & Falchikov N. (Ed.) Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education, learning for the longer term (pp 14-27) London: Routledge.
4. Broughan, C., & Grantham, D. (2012) Helping them succeed the staff-student relationship. In Improving Student Engagement and Development through Assessment. (pp45-58) Oxon: Routledge.
5. Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In Leach J. & Moon B. (Ed.), (1999) Learners and Pedagogy (pp.4-21) London: Paul Chapman Publishing with The Open University.
6. Carless, D. (2007). Learning-orientated assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44, (1), 57–66.
7. Carless, D. Salter, D. Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407.
8. Cole M., & Engeström Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.

9. Cresswell, J. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. California: Sage.
10. Crossouard, B. (2009). A sociocultural reflection on formative assessment and collaborative challenges in the states of Jersey. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 77-93.
11. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit.
12. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity Theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström, Y. Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (Ed) Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp19-38) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Engeström, Y. (2009) Expansive learning: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. In Illeris K (Ed.) Contemporary Theories of Learning. New York: Routledge.
14. Finlay, I. (2008). Learning through boundary-crossing: Further education lecturers learning in both the university and workplace. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 73-87.
15. Gardner, J. (2006) Assessment and Learning: An Introduction. InGardner, J. Assessment and Learning (pp.81-101)London: Sage.
16. Hallett, C. (1995) Understanding the phenomenological approach to research. Nurse Researcher, 3(2), 55-65
17. Harlen, W. (2006) On the Relationship between Assessment for formative and summative purposes in Gardner, J. Assessment and Learning (pp.81-101)London: Sage.
18. Holloway, I. (1997) Basic concepts for qualitative research. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford
19. Hopwood, N., & Stocks, C. (2008). Teaching development for doctoral students: What we can learn from activity theory? International Journal for Academic Development, 13(3), 187-198.
20. James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. InGardner, J. Assessment and Learning (pp.47-61)London: Sage.
21. Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319-339.
22. Kreber , C. (2010). Academics’ teacher identities, authenticity and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 35(2), 171-194.
23. Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22(3), 222-240.
24. McDowell, L., Sambell, K., Bazin, K., Penlington, K., Wakelin, D., Wickes, H., & Smailes, J. (2006). Assessment for learning: Current practice exemplars for the centre for excellence in teaching and learning. Newcastle, UK: Northumbria University.
25. Molloy, E., & Boud, D, (2012) Changing conceptions of feedback. In Boud, D. & Molloy. E. Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: understanding it and doing it well (pp.11-33)Oxon: Routledge.
26. Niewolny, C., & Wilson, A. (2009). What happened to the promise? A cultural (re)orientation of two sociocultural learning traditions. Adult Education Quarterly,60(1), 26-45.
27. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199– 218.
28. Nicol, D. (2010) From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517.
29. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011) Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement, Studies in Higher Education. 36(8), 879-896.
30. Price, M., Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., Handley, H., & Bryant, R. (2012) Assessment literacy. the foundation for improving student learning. The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
31. Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A sociocultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 1–20.
32. Sadler, R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1) 77– 84.
33. Shor , I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the Dialogic Method of teaching? Journal of Education, 169(3), 11- 31.
34. Silverman, D. (2005) Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.
35. Thomas, G (2007) Education and theory: Strangers in paradigms. New York: Open University Press.
36. Thomas, G (2002). Theory's Spell-on qualitative inquiry and educational research. British Educational Research Journal,28(3), 419- 434.
37. Thompson, A. (1998) Recognising research processes in research based literature. In Crookes, P.& Davies, S. Research into Practice (pp116-129) London: Bailliere Tindall.
38. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5),615-631.
39. Trigwell, K. (2003). A Relational approach model for academic development. In Eggins, H. & Macdonald, R. (Ed.) The Scholarship of Academic Development (pp 23-34). London: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
40. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Move towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice, Higher Education, 45, 477–501.
41. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.