Symposium 8

1
The Use of Transparency in the Interactive
Examination for Student Teachers Formerly known
as The use of self-assessment criteria in the
Interactive examination for student teachers
Anders Jonsson, Malmo University, Sweden
2
Question
How can expectations be made transparent to the
students, in order to support their learning of
competences.
3
(1) Assessment criteria
Criteria makes explicit what is assessed and what
is considered important.
4
(1) Assessment criteria
Criteria makes explicit what is assessed and what
is considered important.
Problem Criteria are difficult to interpret for
novices.
5
(2) Self-assessment
Students use the same criteria as the teacher to
assess their own performance.
6
(2) Self-assessment
Students use the same criteria as the teacher to
assess their own performance.
Problem Criteria are difficult to interpret for
novices.
Problem 2 Self-assessment is a cognitively very
complex task.
7
(3) Self-assessment criteria
Students use the same criteria as the teacher to
assess their own performance
and they are provided with criteria of
self-assessment to aid the self-assessment
process.
8
(3) Self-assessment criteria
Students use the same criteria as the teacher to
assess their own performance
and they are provided with criteria of
self-assessment to aid the self-assessment
process.
Still a problem Criteria are difficult to
interpret for novices.
9
(4) Exemplars
Answers assessed with, and followed by
qualitative feedback in relation to, the criteria.
Shows how the criteria should be interpreted.
10
(5) Scoring rubric
Combines criteria with different levels of
quality performance.
Promotes learning and self-assessment.
11
Summary (transparency)
1. Self-assessment2. Scoring rubric including
self-assessment criteria3. Exemplars
12
Context
The Interactive examination1
13
The Inter_at_ctive examination
1. Quantitative self-assessment16 questions
graded from1 (poor) to 6 (excellent)
14
The Inter_at_ctive examination
Analysis of simulated classroom
situationsThree fieldsObservationAnalysisTak
ing action
15
The Inter_at_ctive examination
Comparison with expert
Qualitative self-assessment a) Identify
differences between your own and the
experts analysis of the situation.b)
State reasons for the differences.c) Identify
shortcomings in your competency as a teacher
and, on the basis of these, suggest own
educational needs.
Anders Jönsson, Malmö Högskola
16
The Inter_at_ctive examination
EvaluationStudents perceptions of the
methodologyMostly Likert-scale questions1 (Do
not agree) 9 (Agree)
17
The Inter_at_ctive examination
Assessmentwith a scoring rubric
18
Part of Scoring Rubric
19
The Inter_at_ctive examination
Feedbackfor each criterion in the scoring
rubric
20
Sample
Three cohorts of student teachers during their
first semester at the School of Teacher
Education. (n 170, 154, and 138 for 2004,
2005 and 2006)
21
Research design
Changes in the Interactive examination between
the 2004 and the 2005 version
1. Clarifying criteria in the rubric
(including the self-assessment criteria)2.
Providing exemplars
22
Research design
Comparison of scores between 2004/2005 and
2005/2006.
Comparison of results between those who used the
rubric and those who did not.NOTE Not
experimental design!
23
Results (transparency)
Comparison of scores between 2004/2005 and
2005/2006.
24
Results (self-assessment)
Comparison of self-assessment scores and scores
for other parts of the examination.
25
Results (rubric)
Comparison of results between those who used the
rubric and those who did not.NOTE Not
experimental design!
26
Thank you for your attention!

• E-mail
• anders.jonsson_at_mah.se