Running Head: ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

Assessment Strategies for Later Years Students

By Lisa Johnson

Submitted as EDU5MTL Assessment 2.2.A

Due Date: 26th April
Instructor: Anne Sparks
Lab: N/A
Word Count: 699

Running Head: ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

2

Assessment is a vital component of any teaching curriculum. From

providing feedback to students, educators and parents about the effectiveness
of teaching methods and learning behaviours (Glaser, Chudowski & Pellegrino,
2001) through to the strengthening of classroom learning cultures (Shepard,
2000), the importance of assessment in schooling cannot be understated. This is
particularly true of later year students (LYS). Whether they are planning on
going to TAFE, University, an apprenticeship or the workforce, LYS are preparing
for a future in which the quality of their work will increasingly be the subject of
assessment. This paper will examine three assessment strategies commonly
used in school situations: 1) practice frequency; 2) formative pencil-paper
assessments and; 3) self-evaluation. It will examine these strategies in general
terms, in the context of LYS and in the context of how feedback about learning
can be given to students and parents.
Practice frequency (PF) is a formative assessment which requires a
teacher to check for students understanding at least three times throughout a
lesson (Briggs, 2014). Research on PF and concept repetition has shown that it
can increase semantic memory retention (Wang & Thomas, 1995) and facilitate
learning (Perin, 2002). That said, assessing via PF in education requires a
teacher to check for understanding rather than simple retention. This is
particularly important for LYS whose assessments revolve around scientific
inquiry and critical thinking skills. Therefore, for PF to be effective, teachers
should be utilising a variety of techniques such as extension questions and
concept maps within their PF model, rather than simply asking if students
understand the content three times per lesson. By integrating different methods
of checking for understanding into their PF, teachers are also able to assess

Running Head: ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

3

student comprehension across a variety of learning styles. Matching assessment

and teaching methods to learning styles in this manner has been shown to have
significantly positive outcomes for LYS, particularly in academic achievement
(Dunn, Beaudry & Klavas, 2002). Feedback to students can be immediate and
given to the whole class at once when teachers utilise PF.
A second form of assessment that is highly relevant to LYS is traditional
pencil-and-paper assessment. In this style of evaluation, students complete
individual formative assessments of content learnt in a particular lesson or unit
(Briggs, 2014). Much of the formal assessment that LYS are exposed to follows a
pencil-and-paper format (multiple choice questionnaires, short answer questions
and/or essay responses). Therefore, practicing pencil-and-paper evaluations as
formative assessments throughout the year not only give students and teachers
feedback about student progress and understanding, but also give students
valuable practice in how their formal external assessments are run. A positive
by-product of formative pencil-and-paper assessment is that they can improve a
students writing and comprehension over time (Graham, Harris & Hebert,
2011). The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA, 2016)
recommends pencil-and-paper assessment in the form of practice examinations
throughout the teaching year as being a strong way of monitoring student
progress and diagnosing any learning areas requiring further development.
Feedback for pencil-and-paper assessment tends to be definitive, detailed and
timely. For example, a multiple-choice questionnaire can be marked in class and
can give students and teachers an immediate idea of where any strengths or
weaknesses may lie. Additionally, the results of pencil-and-paper assessments

Running Head: ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

4

are what generally go in to school reports and therefore provide an important

link between providing consistent feedback to both students and their parents.
When teaching LYS, teachers should be aiming to help students develop
their critical thinking and self-evaluation skills as well as their academic abilities
(Pithers & Soden, 2000). Therefore, the third assessment strategy that this
paper will highlight is that of self-evaluation. The Victorian State Government
(VSG) has a number of resources available that enable students to review and
reflect on their knowledge, progress and achievement during a unit as an
ongoing assessment tool (VSG, 2013). Learning journals have been found to be
a strong self-evaluation learning tool (Buhner, Nuckles & Renkl, 2010). By
regularly collecting and checking learning journals, teachers are able to assess
where students are with the content, their level of understanding and also their
writing comprehension skills. Additionally, by responding to journal entries
teachers are able to provide students with personalised, private feedback.

References
Briggs, S. (2014, May 4). 20 simple assessment strategies you can use every day [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/assessment/20-simple-assessmentstrategies-can-use-every-day/
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of research on learning styles. California
Journal

of

Science

Education, 2(2),

http://citirx.4arc.com/csta/pdf/30learnjournal.pdf#page=76

75-98.

Retrieved

from

Running Head: ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

5

Glaser, R., Chudowsky, N., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The
science

and

design

of

educational

assessment.

Retrieved

from

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative
assessment. A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie Corporation of New
York. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537566
Hbner, S., Nckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to
overcome

learning-strategy

deficits. Learning

and

Instruction, 20(1),

18-29.

doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.12.001
Perin, D. (2002). Repetition and the informational writing of developmental students. Journal of
Developmental

Education,

26(1),

2-10.

Retrieved

from

http://search.proquest.com/openview/f5e37850356e2f5c9f732d91e482255c/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=2030483
Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational
Research, 42(3), 237-249. doi: 10.1080/001318800440579
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7),
4-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176145
The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA]. (2016). Procedures for assessment in
VCE

studies,

2016.

Retrieved

from

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/adminproceduresvceassess.pdf
Victorian State Government [VSG]. (2013). Review and reflection tools. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/Pages/reviewreflect.aspx
Wang, A. Y., & Thomas, M. H. (1995). Effects of keyword on long-term retention: Help or
hindrance? Journal

of

Educational

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.468

Psychology, 87(3),

468-475.

doi:

Running Head: ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

6