North of England Education Conference Sheffield 16 - 18 January 2013

North of England Education Conference Sheffield 16 - 18 January 2013 Symposium Friday 18 January 10.30 – 11.45 Exploring metaphors to clarify cognitive understandings and perceptions of assessment Matsdorf, Sen and Taras

Symposium Paper 2 Including learners in innovative assessment practices Dr MaddalenaTaras

Learners, learning and assessing (De)construction of learners in discourse Social constructivist framework interplay of factors from language/culture/power Discourses mitigate against novelty

Learners, learning and assessing Society Concept of life-long learner: does it denigrate the expert, diminish importance of expertise? We are all in the same boat i.e. constant learners Concept of accredited learning requires belief in transferable skills Power Absorbs and neutralises innovations, new ideas/paradigms eg AfL, ssa In language/culture is there an in-built power control Do we interpret/ see things in terms of the status quo that will not shake up or de-stabilise society?

Metaphors of communication Two main metaphors: 1. ‘argument as war’ (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 2002) 2. ‘conduit’ metaphor (Reddy 1979)

1. ‘argument as war’ (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 2002) “Some arguments are so profoundly naturalized within a particular culture that people are not only quite unaware of these most of the time, but find it extremely difficult, even when their attention is drawn to them, to escape from them in their course, thinking, or action ... Thus the militarization of discourse is also a militarization of thought and social practice … just as the marketization of discourse in education referred to above is also a marketization of thought and practice” (Fairclough 1994 p195)

‘argument as war’ 1. ‘argument as war’ (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 2002) ‘your claims are indefensible’ ‘he attacked every weak point in my argument’ ‘his criticisms were right on target’ ‘I demolished his argument’ “for most people this is the ordinary way of having an argument” and “the language of argument is not poetic, fanciful or rhetorical; it is literal” (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 2002)

‘argument as war’ “Evidence for metaphor in shaping and structuring how we think and act is provided by the difficulty of imagining a world in which argument is viewed differently, for example as a dance in which the main objective is to achieve an elegant and balanced performance” (Harrison 2004 p172) Differences of opinion would hold few threats if we were merely dancing our way through arguments, new ideas and academic papers.

Implications of ‘argument as war’ In academia ideas/arguments at heart of academic life/communication: Discussion/disagreement fraught with danger: disagreement = aggressive/uncollegial/(defence against) attack: (Taras 2007a,b) lack of solidarity/support new paradigms/ideas seen as attack: form schools of thought/ideologies/cliques problems with reviews of journal articles/book

Implications for ALT Unequal status tutors/learners makes questions/challenges/disagreements by learners doubly aggressive lack of respect as challenges tutors’ expertise

‘conduit’ metaphor (Reddy 1979) (1) Try to get your thoughts across better (2) None of Mary’s feelings came through to me with any clarity (3) You still haven’t given me any idea of what you mean language transfers human thoughts and feelings - “a good speaker knows how to use language to send people his thoughts” and a poor speaker does not. (Reddy 1979 p287)

“conduit metaphor” network of 140 expressions (30-40 others) 4 main categories (1) language functions like a conduit, transferring thoughts bodily from one person to another (2) in writing/speaking people insert their thoughts or feelings in the words (3) words contain thoughts/feelings and convey them to others (4) listening/reading people extract thoughts/feelings from words.” (Reddy 1979 p290)

Implications of ‘conduit’ metaphors for all communication negative for both attempting to communicate: considered ‘success without effort’ system” BUT is an “energy must be expended” system (Reddy 1979 p308) blames the speaker/writer for communication problems as the one with the more difficult task of packaging meanings/feelings belittles work of listener/hearer who only opens package: trivialises learning lack of understanding signals ignorance or lack of intelligence in the listener speakers feel their efforts have been wasted

Implication of the ‘conduit’ metaphors for ALT a) Tutors’ perspectives they have done hard work of preparing the ideas and ‘package’: if learning does not take place they are doubly insulted: firstly, they have done the work for the learners and secondly, the learners have failed to put in the required effort or time or both These perceptions will influence the relationship between learners and tutors. In class, learners who question opinions and ask questions may not necessarily be appreciated. face to face discussions: easier to negotiate meaning, accept another viewpoint and so agree to differ (learners’ generally prefer oral feedback

Implication of the ‘conduit’ metaphors for ALT b) Learners’ perspectives trivializing learning means that lack of conceptual understanding may label the learner as intellectually slow or lazy and evoke little sympathy or support learners vulnerable and because of metaphoric influence blame themselves for lack of understanding. If learners disagree with tutors disagree double challenge could be to learners’ detriment NB possible benefit of current business metaphor in HE (learning a commodity not a tenet of enlightened society Fairclough 1994 p195): provides learners with right to question as customer is always right

Including learners in innovative assessment practices Support for mandatory self-assessment Theory Sadler 1989, Taras 2002, 2010 Empirical research Black and Wiliam 1998, Crooks 1988, Natriello 1987 Practice “I judge the introduction of self-assessment … as the most powerful factor for change and development” (Cowan 2006 p111) “Almost all the teachers mentioned some form of self-assessment in their plans…the effect of the intervention can be seen to almost double the rate of student learning” (Wiliam 2007 p1059)

Commonality of self-assessment definition/process set/negotiate/discuss criteria/standards critically assess own work use criteria/standards to judge/justify grade

Standard model process Students submit work plus self-assessment = good/weak points/how to improve Tutor assesses work and self-assessment Good for checking

Standard model problems in hindsight and mainly from students Non-graded work Tutor double assessment Students judged twice Students’ “good work” handed in - convinced Separates tutor/student assessments – grades not questioned

Taras model Researched and used across subjects: in HE secondary schools in Sweden

Ssa with integrated tutor/peer feedback Uses graded work Students re-read Discuss work and peers’ Peer assessment, feedback, grading Tutor - feedback NO grade Student feedback, grade Tutor feedback, grade Comparisons/discussions (Taras 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008a, 2010a)

Advantages of Taras model students internalise tutor/peer feedback transparency tutor marking/grading double-markers to tutor/peers can question process/product “The results showed that while both conditions benefited learning, self-assessment with integrated tutor feedback helped students identify and correct more errors (those that they or peers had not been aware of) than self-assessment prior to peer or tutor feedback. Interestingly, this study not only shows the benefits of integrating external and internal feedback but it also shows ways of helping students internalise and use tutor feedback” (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2005 p9)

Unanimity in research All above and all empirical research agree student self-assessment is mandatory for learning and use of feedback But link FA, SA + ssa not made

Thank you for participating Any questions/comments? maddalena.taras@sunderland.ac.uk

North of England Education Conference Sheffield 16 - 18 January 2013