Activating Assessment for Learning

This chapter examines the role Web 2.0 tools can play in promoting the “assessment for learning” agenda. It presents a number of cases of peer, self, and computer assessments that display a range of characteristics proposed by Elliott (2008) for the next generation of assessment tasks. The discussion of the cases reveals a missing characteristic, which is a form of feedback to the students that will take their learning forward—the author calls this “advice for action.” It is argued that in order for assessment tasks and tools to become more effective they need to be embedded within a pedagogical framework, which in turn requires a supportive infrastructure as proposed by the 4Ts pyramid. The major components of the pyramid consist of: (1) tool development; (2) staff training; (3) rethinking the assessment tasks; and (4) learning from the assessment tasks.

A Comparison of Two Methods of Administering Group Reading Inventories to Diverse Learners

This study examined the level of agreement between two methods of administering group reading inventories, computer and pencil and paper, leading to placing 72 secondary students, 38 males and 34 females, into three instructional groups—teacher directed, dyadic, and independent. The students, 13 with learning disabilities, 16 remedial, and 43 normally achieving, were enrolled in science and social studies classes in middle school and high school. In one condition, students read textbook passages presented on computer, completed study guides, and took 15-item tests on computer. In the other condition, the same students read passages from their textbooks, completed study guides, and took 15-item tests with pencil and paper. An equivalent time samples design was arranged, with four computer assessments and four pencil-and-pape r assessments randomly assigned. The dependent measures consisted of two types of test items, factual and interpretive. The results of group analysis significantly favored the computer overall on factual questions, with individual analyses indicating few significant differences resulting from the two types of group reading inventories. On interpretive test items, the results of group analysis revealed no significant difference between the two assessment methods, a finding generally corroborated by the individual analyses. Correlation coefficients substantiated significant positive relationships between the dependent measures and the group reading inventories. Overall, the placement of students in three instructional groups was identical for each type of group reading inventory in 72% of individual comparisons. Several recommendations for teachers are presented and discussed.