Formative Assessment Of Educational Achievements Of Students In Primary Education: Teacher Training

Research methodology

To prepare this research article, a constructive-genetic method was used and modeling of elements of educational programs was applied. The experience of university teachers in the use of formative assessment techniques was studied and analyzed (Cansiz & Cansiz, 2019; Chandra & Baikina, 2018; Zemlyanskaya, 2020).

As a result, the following procedures were identified and the method of their use in the process of classroom studies was described in detail:

• mutual evaluation of work in groups and organization of educational and professional discussions;

• preparation by students of reflective self-reports;

• presentation by teachers of detailed comments on the work of students;

• formative use of final tests and evaluation means of intermediate tests.

To carry out the required experimental work, we organized cooperation with a group of teachers who shared our assumption about the effectiveness of using new forms of assessment in the process of teacher training and were ready to introduce these procedures into the pedagogical process (a total of 9 university teachers participated).

Experimental teaching was carried out at pedagogical universities in Moscow; it was attended by undergraduate and graduate students studying in the areas of Pedagogical Education and Psychological and Pedagogical Education focusing on the Primary education. In total, 10 experimental groups and the same number of control groups participated. The experiment also involved 4 groups of trainees of advanced training courses for primary school teachers.

Each teacher participating in the experiment independently chose the groups of students and the discipline to apply formative assessment in the process of teaching. The following disciplines were subject to experimental teaching: "Pedagogical technologies of developing education", "Pedagogy of primary education", "Modern system of continuous education for children of preschool and school age", "General pedagogy and the foundations of general didactics", "Pedagogical design", "Pedagogy".

For each experimental group of students, the teacher defined a control group. In some cases, it was a parallel group taught by the same teacher this year or the previous year. In the latter case, the statements and ratings of the previous year were "reviewed", and the participants in the experimental work controlled possible differences in the levels of educational achievements of students using the scores of the past years. In some cases, a control group was a group of another teacher, who implemented the same discipline in parallel.

Since the educational programs of universities provided for various forms of intermediate attestation in selected disciplines and various scales, the level of improvement in educational results of students was determined in different ways: on the basis of assessments on the final exam for a module (15-point scale); or using the final examinations in the discipline (5-point scale), or based on point ratings obtained at the intermediate certification in the discipline (100-point scale). To compare the numerical data, the Cramer-Welch test was used. The reliability of the differences in the characteristics of the compared samples for 11 out of 14 groups of student teachers participating in the experiment (confidence level 95%).

An increase in the competence of a student-pedagogue or a practicing teacher in the formative assessment of the educational results of schoolchildren in the experiment was measured using the following methods: a) questioning; b) analysis of technological maps (scenarios) of lessons developed by students. The questions of the questionnaires made it possible to identify the following indicators: the cognitive basis of competence (understanding the essence of formative assessment); value-semantic attitude to the use of formative procedures in the classroom; readiness to update competence (motivation and experience of use). The analysis of the lesson scenarios was carried out on the basis of three indicators: the presence of formative assessment in the educational situation of the lesson scenario, its design in accordance with the algorithm of the formative assessment, the logic of the choice of tools and inclusion in the lesson structure. 198 students from the experimental groups and 172 people from the control groups participated in the tests. Scales of competence levels were developed: knowledge-based (36%), performance-related (48%), and creativity (16% of the number of students in experimental groups) (table 01 ).

Mutual evaluation of work in groups and the organization of educational and professional discussions

In the classroom lesson, students were asked to split in groups of 4-6 people and discuss each other's completed work by lot or "by chain". The system of evaluation criteria and indicators concretizing them was previously discussed collectively. It was proposed to prepare a general opinion from the group, highlighting the best works, typical mistakes, ways of correcting the work performed.

The initial methodological basis of this procedure is the hypothesis of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory that, by and large, any teaching is a transition, or translation of what is accumulated in the activities and communication of people into the consciousness of the student. The scientist wrote: “the task of analysis is to show how an individual reaction arises from the forms of collective life” (Vygotsky, 1983, p.146). That is, in various situations of interaction, for the reflection to occur there must be difficulty in the orientation of "I and the other", since reflection of this type makes it possible to develop pedagogical activity through reflection of pedagogical experience. This makes it possible to form a reflexive attitude of the student-pedagogue to the professional action being mastered - the formative assessment. Discussions with other students and the teacher regarding the conditions and ways of improving the action of formative assessment allows not just to appropriate it, but also to understand it in the space of professional opportunities, that is, to carry out professional and ideological generalization. The methodology for organizing educational discussions in professional education is discussed in detail in our works (Zemlyanskaya, 2020; Zemlyanskaya & Sitnichenko, 2015), in the classic works of Robert Slavin, as well as in a number of other works (Colby, Lambert, & McGee, 2016; Moradi, Faghiharam, & Ghasempour, 2018).

“The teacher did not check our laboratory work herself and offered to evaluate them in micro-groups “in a chain”. We were surprised and decided at first that she did so because she did not have time to prepare for the lesson. When I read Vera's work, I realized that she focused on the work much more thoroughly than I did. Her laboratory work contained detailed observations of children, and this allowed her to draw important conclusions about children. My conclusions were not sufficiently substantiated. I withdrew my lab work and asked the instructor for permission to submit it in a week. I will redo it (Lena S., Bachelor of Primary Education)."

“After the evaluation of my draft lesson by other students, it is easier for me to admit my mistakes. I hope that not only I learn as a result of the project, but also those listeners who evaluated it. Next time I will have to argue my work more clearly, as they said: "It is difficult to understand ...", "For what purpose was this done?", "Why is this teaching method chosen?" I will rework my draft lesson to make it clear. (N.G., primary school teacher, student of the advanced training program)"

Reflexive self-reports of students

The increase in motivation and the semantic orientation of student teachers in formative assessment was carried out from the standpoint of a reflexive approach (N.G. Alekseev). The influence of reflection on learning is revealed in works (Beregovaya et al., 2018; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Walahoski & Suzanne, 2012). The student's reflexive activity, his self-analysis of his own achievements and failures is set as a trigger for the formation of his request for the further progress of professional education, as well as self-determination in professional activity (Wong, 2016). Students' reflexive self-assessment of works was actualized based on the following techniques.

Use of "know - want to know - learned" tables.

Self-reports on one's own participation in formative assessment situations as a learner. For this, the teacher of the discipline at the university for the initial, current or midterm assessment of students to the maximum extent uses the ideology and algorithms of formative assessment of educational achievements in combination with the standard format of summative testing in the discipline (the so-called intermediate assessment). The experienced sensory experience of such an assessment of his own achievements then allows the student-pedagogue to predict the likely responses and reactions of his students to the situations of assessment.

Self-reports on practices. Preparation of detailed answers to questions such as: "How does the assessment situation I have organized affect the students?", "Do I act correctly in the assessment situation from the perspective of my general principles?", "How does the student perceive my comments or lack of them?", "What is the motivation of my activity?" (Zemlyanskaya, 2015; Zemlyanskaya, Galyamova, & Bezborodova, 2018) and others.

Comparison of model and real assessment situations. The subject of reflexive introspection was the difference between the model of formative assessment, mastered in a model situation in the classroom at the university and in real conditions of professional activity. The failure or ineffectiveness of such an action was analyzed, and the action was corrected based on self-determination in the profession, personal preferences and personality orientation, and subjective experience. We believed that the motivational-value attitude to the use of formative assessment will be realized only if each student-pedagogue finds his own ways of implementing his procedures, which have developed based on his own practice in the classroom.

Presentation by teachers of detailed comments on the work of students

Obviously, comments become the effective means of feedback if students use them to guide their future work. Providing comments to students helps them focus on learning objectives rather than trying to challenge a score or grade. When developing methodological recommendations for making comments by a teacher, we proceeded from the following provisions:

The commentary should be based on the criteria for evaluating the work, which were developed in advance and agreed with the students; comments should only relate to key elements of the study.

The teacher's evasion of explanations, the uncertainty of the assessment, use of stereotyped comments is viewed by students extremely negatively, since it disorganizes the student, does not orient him towards self-education and development.

The commentary should not be only critical and point out deficiencies in the work.

At the beginning of the commentary, the strengths of the work and the individual progress of the student should be pointed out.

The commentary should end with a clear prescription of what exactly should be improved by the student, indicate the forms and deadline for completion.

It is inappropriate to use templates for composing a comment (for example: "The work is done completely / incompletely / partially"). They are perceived by students as a formality and are not used by them to improve their work. Comments should be personalized.

Additional time should be allowed for in class. Before completing the assignment - for a detailed discussion or even development, together with students, of criteria and indicators for evaluating the work. After the completed and graded assignment - to rewrite some parts of the work in the classroom (Platonova et al., 2017).

Teacher V.A.: “I have always commented on students' work, but I did it verbally in the classroom. When I began to use written comments on student work, I discovered the following. Students stopped demanding an explanation of why a particular point was given for the work. They began to respond to written comments, to take my comments into account in their subsequent works. Apparently, oral commentary in class was perceived by them painfully, and was considered as a personal reproach, rather than as a guide to learning. When I was making written comments, I saw that some of the assignments were composed by me incorrectly, with unclear wording, so there was a need to redo the assignment. "

Formative use of final tests or review questions. The following procedures were used

Students were presented with a list of didactic units of a discipline or topic and were asked to mark them with traffic light signs (red, yellow and green) or other signs. For instance: (V) a ”tick” marks something that no longer causes difficulties; (-) a minus sign marks something that is not clear; (+) a plus sign indicates something that can help other students; (?) "question mark" is put if something is unclear, or a question arose. Then the teacher instructed several students in the group to collect and summarize the results of the marking. After that, working groups of students were formed to refine the unclear or incomprehensible.

Students got into groups of 4 - 6 people and they were asked to draw up a mental map (knowledge map, mind maps) on the topic / section. Maps designed by different groups of students were compared and analyzed in the class.

Students were asked to independently formulate test questions on a specific topic / section set by the teacher. The tests were then mixed up and presented to other students in the group to be sure they could answer the questions.

The formative significance of these and other procedures is explained by the actions that the student must perform, namely:

• outline for yourself the boundaries of this topic (if necessary);

• structure information and practical experience in the context of the topic;

• make up a statement, related to the topic, in the form of a question / task;

• comply with the proposed test format;

• predict correct and incorrect answers, while the latter should outwardly be similar to correct ones, etc. (Zemlyanskaya, 2015).

“The teacher suggested that we work in the microgroups to develop tests for certification. It seemed to me strange and unnecessary: how can I, a student, know what exactly I need to learn? We started writing tests. I had to read lectures several times. After one lecture, other students and I could not make tests, it became clear that we did not understand the content. To understand the topic, I had to go to the Internet, and the teacher explained something. When the tests were prepared, it became clear that in this way the teacher forced us to work through the material. When I work with children, I will definitely take this technique into service! (Alisa V., undergraduate student "Primary education") ".