写作课堂学习评价:不完全实现

IF 1.2 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Curriculum Journal Pub Date : 2014-04-03 DOI:10.1080/09585176.2013.862172
E. Hawe, J. Parr
{"title":"写作课堂学习评价:不完全实现","authors":"E. Hawe, J. Parr","doi":"10.1080/09585176.2013.862172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An Observation Guide, designed to help New Zealand teachers identify areas of teaching strength and aspects for development, was developed as part of a wider project. In the second phase of this project, 18 middle school teachers used the Guide to gather and record evidence as they participated in seven rounds of reciprocal peer observation and feedback during writing lessons with Grades 6–8 students. We report here on data from round 6 observations about the assessment for learning (AfL) strategies reported as evident in teachers’ practices, how these strategies were implemented and potential gaps in practice. AfL has at its heart a core of interdependent strategies that collectively contribute to the development of autonomous, self-regulating learners and quality learning. While the middle school teachers shared goals for learning and communicated what counted as successful achievement to students, they appeared to struggle when articulating goals in terms of literacy learning and conveying the substantive aspects and quality expected in students’ writing. In addition, despite AfL's promotion of learner autonomy, few teachers openly afforded students focused opportunities to take a meaningful role in their learning through the appraisal of their own and peers’ writing and the joint construction of feedback. As such, teachers’ AfL practice in the writing classroom failed to realise its full potential. It is argued that the promise of AfL can only be reached when strategies are enacted in ways that reflect its unitary nature, promote quality outcomes and give students a central role in their learning.","PeriodicalId":46745,"journal":{"name":"Curriculum Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09585176.2013.862172","citationCount":"58","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment for Learning in the writing classroom: an incomplete realisation\",\"authors\":\"E. Hawe, J. Parr\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09585176.2013.862172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An Observation Guide, designed to help New Zealand teachers identify areas of teaching strength and aspects for development, was developed as part of a wider project. In the second phase of this project, 18 middle school teachers used the Guide to gather and record evidence as they participated in seven rounds of reciprocal peer observation and feedback during writing lessons with Grades 6–8 students. We report here on data from round 6 observations about the assessment for learning (AfL) strategies reported as evident in teachers’ practices, how these strategies were implemented and potential gaps in practice. AfL has at its heart a core of interdependent strategies that collectively contribute to the development of autonomous, self-regulating learners and quality learning. While the middle school teachers shared goals for learning and communicated what counted as successful achievement to students, they appeared to struggle when articulating goals in terms of literacy learning and conveying the substantive aspects and quality expected in students’ writing. In addition, despite AfL's promotion of learner autonomy, few teachers openly afforded students focused opportunities to take a meaningful role in their learning through the appraisal of their own and peers’ writing and the joint construction of feedback. As such, teachers’ AfL practice in the writing classroom failed to realise its full potential. It is argued that the promise of AfL can only be reached when strategies are enacted in ways that reflect its unitary nature, promote quality outcomes and give students a central role in their learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Curriculum Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09585176.2013.862172\",\"citationCount\":\"58\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Curriculum Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.862172\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Curriculum Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.862172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58

摘要

《观察指南》是一个更广泛项目的一部分,旨在帮助新西兰教师确定教学优势领域和发展方面。在该项目的第二阶段,18名中学教师在与6-8年级学生的写作课上参与了七轮对等的同伴观察和反馈,并使用该指南收集和记录证据。我们在这里报告了第6轮关于学习评估(AfL)策略的观察数据,这些策略在教师实践中是如何实施的,以及实践中的潜在差距。AfL的核心是相互依存的策略,这些策略共同有助于培养自主、自我调节的学习者和高质量的学习。虽然中学教师分享了学习目标,并向学生传达了什么是成功的成就,但他们在阐述识字学习目标和传达学生写作中所期望的实质性方面和质量方面似乎很困难。此外,尽管AfL促进了学习者的自主性,但很少有教师公开地为学生提供集中的机会,通过评价自己和同龄人的写作以及共同构建反馈,让学生在学习中发挥有意义的作用。因此,教师在写作课堂上的AfL实践并没有充分发挥其潜力。有人认为,只有当制定的策略反映其统一性,促进高质量的结果,并使学生在学习中发挥核心作用时,才能实现AfL的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment for Learning in the writing classroom: an incomplete realisation
An Observation Guide, designed to help New Zealand teachers identify areas of teaching strength and aspects for development, was developed as part of a wider project. In the second phase of this project, 18 middle school teachers used the Guide to gather and record evidence as they participated in seven rounds of reciprocal peer observation and feedback during writing lessons with Grades 6–8 students. We report here on data from round 6 observations about the assessment for learning (AfL) strategies reported as evident in teachers’ practices, how these strategies were implemented and potential gaps in practice. AfL has at its heart a core of interdependent strategies that collectively contribute to the development of autonomous, self-regulating learners and quality learning. While the middle school teachers shared goals for learning and communicated what counted as successful achievement to students, they appeared to struggle when articulating goals in terms of literacy learning and conveying the substantive aspects and quality expected in students’ writing. In addition, despite AfL's promotion of learner autonomy, few teachers openly afforded students focused opportunities to take a meaningful role in their learning through the appraisal of their own and peers’ writing and the joint construction of feedback. As such, teachers’ AfL practice in the writing classroom failed to realise its full potential. It is argued that the promise of AfL can only be reached when strategies are enacted in ways that reflect its unitary nature, promote quality outcomes and give students a central role in their learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Curriculum Journal
Curriculum Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Curriculum making and knowledge conceptions in classrooms in the context of standards‐based curricula Review of: Curriculum challenges and opportunities in a changing world: Transnational perspectives in curriculum inquiryB.Green (Eds.) M.Brennan (Eds.) P.Roberts (Eds.) Palgrave MacMillan, 2021, XVII + 355 pp. ISBN 978‐3‐030‐61666‐3. 129,99 € (Hardcover). Teachers’ Perceptions of Physical literacy Curriculum in context Learners’ views of literature in EFL education from curricular and assessment perspectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1