Teachers as mediators: formative practices with assessment criteria and standards.
Dargusch, Joanne
Introduction
Australian teachers are operating in an atmosphere of large-scale
change. For the first time a national curriculum, known as the
Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority
(ACARA), 2013), is being implemented. This implementation sits within a
changing environment for assessment nationally, with growing priority
given to accountability of teachers.
The Australian Curriculum does not provide guidance for assessment,
with decisions about the manner in which assessment will be conducted
under the control of state and territory jurisdictions. The introduction
of national achievement standards as part of the Australian Curriculum
framework provides, for the first time, expectations of 'the depth
of understanding, the extent of knowledge and the sophistication of
skills that children should typically demonstrate at the end of a period
of teaching' (Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies
(QSSSS), 2011, p. 15). Emphasis is given to achievement standards as a
'reference point' for assessment and reporting in learning
areas (Department for Education and Child Development, 2012). The
introduction of national achievement standards also provides
opportunities for teachers to consider the usefulness of standards for a
range of assessment purposes beyond measurement.
This paper addresses the issue of teachers' use of assessment
criteria and standards with students in classrooms. The study reported
in this paper was conducted in the high-stakes setting of Queensland
Senior English classrooms. The Queensland Senior Schooling,
school-based, externally-moderated, standards-referenced system affords
opportunities for teachers and students to improve student learning,
based on the inclusion of criteria and standards summative assessment
approaches in syllabuses with directions for formative assessment
practice.
The aim of the study was to develop an understanding of the
formative assessment practices of Senior English teachers in a system
where they have a role in the design and implementation of assessment
for high-stakes summative purposes associated with students'
post-school futures, and where formative assessment is associated with
effective planning and student improvement. This research was driven in
part by the lack of empirical evidence of the system in action since its
implementation almost 4 decades ago.
The study used a socio-cultural framework, giving emphasis to the
notion that formative assessment is social, situated, context-bound and
context-specific. Broadfoot's (1996) writing on assessment forms
the centrepiece of the socio-cultural framework as applied in this
study. Broadfoot (1996) describes assessment as a social practice that
involves interactions between groups of actors including students,
teachers, parents and educational institutions. The study examined
assessment as socially enacted through and situated in relationships
that occur in the classroom, as well as externally to the classroom and
the school.
This article reports in particular on findings from the study
associated with teachers' use of assessment criteria and standards
for formative assessment purposes and their understanding of the utility
of the assessment criteria and standards for both teachers and students
in the classroom.
This paper has 5 sections, and considers first the key role of
assessment criteria and standards in the distinctive Queensland
assessment context. A brief review of the relevant international and
national literature provides understandings of assessment criteria and
standards and their use for formative purposes. Next, the data gathering
and methodology of the study are outlined. In section four key findings
from the research are presented and discussed.
Queensland and beyond
In Queensland, teacher-produced, task-specific assessment criteria
and standards based on subject-specific, defined 'exit'
standards published in Syllabus documents are intended to service
summative assessment purposes and formative assessment purposes. They
are used to measure student achievement and feature in instruction, the
improvement of learning and the fostering of self-evaluative expertise,
in addition to their use for summative purposes associated with
certification and reporting student achievement on completion of a
course of study (Wyatt-Smith, 2001). The system provides opportunities
for students to be actively involved in assessment for formative
purposes, through the use of defined assessment criteria and standards.
The examination of the key principles of the Queensland system
allows a focus on issues that may have resonance in other contexts. The
potential agency of the student in their own learning is highlighted, as
is the enabling role of the teacher in providing opportunities for
students to self-evaluate and become increasingly independent
(Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies (QBSSSS), 2002;
QSA, 2010). Klenowski (2001) identifies a level of assessment literacy,
associated with understanding and practising the 'fundamental
principles of assessment design' (p. 80) that is required. Teachers
have a role in developing assessment literacy in their students,
assisting students to understand and use documents such as the task
specifications and the accompanying assessment criteria and standards
independently to improve achievement.
Review of literature
The review of literature identified key messages about formative
assessment purposes, practices and roles and interactions. The following
discussion introduces understandings about the use of criteria and
standards for improvement and the roles of teachers and students in this
process.
Standards and improvement--roles of students and teachers.
Sadler's (1989) seminal paper on feedback described teacher
feedback as having limited benefit by itself and noted that improvement
would not necessarily follow teachers' 'valid and reliable
judgements about the quality of their work' (p. 119). Based on the
work of Ramaprasad (1983), Sadler (1989) defined three indispensable
conditions for improvement. The student must simultaneously understand
the standard or goal they are aiming for, compare that standard with
their own work and then take action to close the gap (Sadler, 1989). The
onus is on the learner's actions through their understanding of the
standard, and judgement and regulation of 'what they are doing
during the doing of it' (Sadler, 1989, p. 121), developing
expertise in self-monitoring, even during the production of work. In
order to do this, Sadler (1998) advocated that students should use
standards to close the gap and maintained this could occur where
students develop the ability to make 'sound qualitative
judgments' (p. 82). Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and Wiliam
(2004) found that 'students should be encouraged to keep in mind
the aims of their work and to assess their own progress towards meeting
these aims', anticipating that they would then 'be able to
guide their own work and so become independent learners' (p. 15).
Harlen and James (1997) emphasise the importance of this action, warning
that unless students 'come to understand their strengths and
weaknesses, and how they might deal with them, they will not make
progress' (p. 372). Teacher feedback has a part to play, presenting
students with opportunities to develop their own learning (Harlen,
2005).
Sadler (1989) found that 'the guild knowledge of teachers
should consist less in knowing how to evaluate student work and more in
knowing ways to download evaluative knowledge to students [original
emphasis]' (p. 141). Guild knowledge is taken to refer to expert
understandings that are held by practitioners in a particular area of
expertise; in this case that reference is to understandings about
standards and how to apply them. The handing down of this knowledge from
teachers to students enables students to self-evaluate and self-monitor
(Sadler, 1998).
Black et al. (2004, p. 15) proposed that for students to develop
guild knowledge, criteria must be used in conjunction with
'concrete examples in modelling exercises to develop
understandings'. This would assist in developing their
understanding of criteria and standards' contextualised meanings
and implications, a process essential in developing self-monitoring
skills (Sadler, 1989, 2009a, 2009b).
The process of developing such skills was viewed by Marshall and
Drummond (2006) as being at the heart of subject English, with the aim
of formative assessment to 'enable pupils to become independent
learners' (p. 4) who have been 'apprenticed into the same
community of interpreters' as their teachers (Marshall, 2004, p.
101).
Hodgen and Marshall (2005, p. 161) identified English-specific
concerns that 'a narrow, easily definable set of criteria will not
illuminate what needs to be understood and developed by the
pupils', and that 'what makes for quality in a piece of work
cannot meaningfully be itemised in advance but can be recognised once it
is complete' (p. 165). Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith (2010) provided
insights to the stance taken by primary and Years 8-10 secondary English
teachers in Queensland that judgement in English cannot be readily
quantified. Interview data revealed that 'they voiced concern about
'a danger of being too detailed' in specifying criteria and
standards'' (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2010, p. 34). The
teachers emphasised the development of knowledge of shared standards
through practice. Further work by Wyatt-Smith and Klenowski (2013)
revealed that 'any set of defined criteria and standards remains
constantly open to negotiation and interpretation' (pp. 24-5). This
stance is closely aligned with Marshall's (2004) description of
progress in English as developing towards an horizon as opposed to a
clearly defined goal, suggesting 'less specific outcomes and
multiple pathways' than a goal model of progression (Parr &
Timperley, 2010, p. 80). Progress includes the exploration and
examination of criteria and 'constant' engagement with
exemplars of quality performance to develop what Wiliam (2002) referred
to as a 'nose for quality' (p. 5).
Contestations of defined criteria and standards.
Several researchers have expressed concerns about the often complex
and indeterminate language used generally to frame criteria and
standards. Broadfoot, McMeeking, James, Nuttall, and Stierer (1988)
presented empirical evidence from a national evaluation of pilot schemes
of Records of Achievements that secondary students thought
self-assessment difficult, in part because the assessment criteria were
unclear and consequently do not engage with assessment criteria and
standards for improvement purposes. Other researchers proposed that
criteria need to be transparent to be used for improvement purposes
(Black et al., 2004; Frederiksen & Collins, 1989; Shepard, 2000),
with strong connections made between clear and transparent assessment
criteria and learning and student self-assessment (Black, Harrison, Lee
& Wiliam, 2000; Kirton, Hallam, Peffers, Robertson & Stobart,
2007; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
2005; Rust et al., 2003; Sadler, 1989; Shepard, 2000).
For some writers, the issue was not the criteria themselves, but
the ways students were required to interact with them. Andrade, Wang,
Du, and Akawi's (2009) empirically-based case study of Year 8
students found that handing out a rubric to students learning about
writing would not result in sustained improvement. It was suggested that
students should become more involved in the 'design of rubrics by
critiquing sample pieces of writing and by teaching students to
self-assess their works in progress' (Andrade et al., 2009, p.
287). Further studies offered evidence that students should be involved
in the construction of assessment criteria and standards, whether
simplified or co-constructed versions (Black et al., 2000).
Empirical evidence
Evidence exists that knowledge of standards associated with
improvement can be developed (Andrade et al., 2009; Black et al., 2000;
Kirton et al., 2007; Rust et al., 2003). Empirical evidence from senior
secondary is presented in Brookhart's (2001) study of Year 11
English and Anatomy students which indicated that 'successful'
students see assessment as a process, part of which is the need to
develop self-monitoring skills. McDonald and Boud's (2003) research
employed quantitative methodologies to show that examination scores of
final year students in West Indies' secondary schools were improved
when a systematic approach was taken to the training of students and
teachers in self-assessment, with an emphasis on criteria and standards.
Kirton et al.'s (2007) investigation of Scottish primary and
junior secondary schools involved in the Assessment is For Learning
Development Programme made claims about the relationship between
criterial knowledge, peer-assessment, self-assessment and improvement.
This research indicated that an internal schema of quality was developed
where students used the criteria to assess and discuss a range of other
students' work against clear assessment criteria provided by their
teacher. From the Higher Education sector, Sadler (2010) advised
extensive peer-assessment as a way of overcoming the prescriptiveness of
criteria and standards
templates, but there is no evidence of how this occurs in the
high-stakes environment of Year 12 as teachers and students work towards
the production and collection of assessment information for
certification and reporting purposes.
Some empirical evidence is available of teachers' uses of
assessment criteria and standards in Queensland Senior classrooms.
Wyatt-Smith's case study (2001) of a Senior English class showed
that the evaluative talk of the teacher or students did not refer to
assessment criteria and standards. Teachers' accounts of their
understanding and use of assessment criteria and standards in Year 12
Health and Physical Education (Hay & Macdonald, 2008) indicated that
teachers interpret and mediate assessment criteria and standards making
the original criteria and standards inaccessible to their students.
Coupled with Wyatt-Smith's finding above, consideration can be
given to the suggestion that language can interfere with the use of
assessment criteria and standards by students. The insights gained
through the critical review of literature conducted for this study
highlighted the need to consider assessment criteria and standards as
part of teachers' formative assessment practices in a system that
prioritises this use to develop students' evaluative expertise and
independence.
Data gathering and methodology
The inquiry was approached in two parts. The first included the
exploration of the research literature, both international and local,
followed by an analysis of policy documents, to find out what
understandings of formative assessment were made available. The focus in
the second part was to document teachers' talk about their
formative assessment understandings and practices and to gather their
accounts of their formative assessment practices.
The research methodology included two case studies, each focussing
on a Year 12 English teacher. These experienced teachers work in
different sectors, different sized schools, and in different regional
centres: Susan teaches at a medium to large regional government-run
secondary school (student population of approximately 990 students); Ros
teaches at a small regional nongovernment-run secondary school (student
population of approximately 450 students).
The data included two semi-structured interviews that gave the
teachers the opportunity to talk through their understandings of
formative assessment and their formative assessment classroom practices
and present artefacts that would demonstrate their formative assessment
practices. In relation to the discussion of assessment criteria and
standards in this paper, key artefacts included School Work Programs,
task sheets, locally developed task-specific assessment criteria and
standards, and simplified criteria and standards. The analysis of the
two data sets (interviews and artefacts) was informed by the
socio-cultural framing of the study (Broadfoot, 1996), which permitted
an opening to consider the interactions between teachers and others of
influence in the workplace.
The key themes identified in the critical review of literature and
understandings drawn from the policy acted as background to the
analysis, but did not explicitly drive it. Instead, the study was based
on Yin's (2003) case description analytic strategy, with the
analysis organised around general characteristics and relations of the
phenomenon. Interviews were manually coded, according to thematic codes
generated by the data. The artefacts were analysed in two ways: matched
against interview segments that made reference to them and their
function in the classroom; and analysed to establish particular
contributions to the reported formative assessment practices and what
this revealed about the teacher's understanding of formative
assessment purposes. Different analysis tools were established during
the on-going analysis. For example, comparison tables were generated to
map the points of convergence between the different representations of
criteria and standards presented in this article, using the official
criteria and standards as the analysis framework.
The analysis of the data revealed several findings in relation to
the teachers' use and mediation of assessment criteria and
standards for formative purposes, and their understanding of the utility
of the assessment criteria and standards for both teachers and students.
The following sections present the discussion of the relevant parts of
the two case reports separately, and a brief discussion of the findings
of the cases together.
Key findings
Susan--interpretation and mediation of assessment criteria and
standards
Susan's practices include a focus on assessment artefacts
through student exploration and teacher talk about expected quality. In
some units of work, students receive three assessment artefacts
associated with the production of a summative assessment task. These can
include official assessment criteria and standards developed by the Head
of the English Department (HOD) (Figure 1); criteria and standards
generated by Susan (Figure 2); and a student self-assessment checklist
authored by Susan (Figure 3). The last two are used in the classroom for
formative assessment purposes and are Susan's interpretation of the
requirements of the task, and the assessment criteria and standards.
The assessment criteria and standards authored by the HOD reproduce
the official assessment language of the Syllabus comprising three
mandated, organising criteria which are drawn from the Exit Criteria and
Standards: control of texts in their contexts; control of textual
features; and knowledge and understanding of text construction.
Susan reports that she is reluctant to use the assessment criteria
and standards with students. In her view, the language is not
'reader friendly', and is 'too kind of wordy and too
teacher talk' (Interview 1, 99-101). However, despite the
complexity of the language Susan identifies criteria and standards as
being sufficiently important as to warrant explicit attention. She does
this through interpreting the official criteria and standards, and
expressing these as unofficial written and unofficial spoken criteria
and standards. She supports students' understanding of the
assessment criteria and
standards through her classroom talk:
115. T I mean I continually make sort of reference to these things
(the criteria) but I mean I don't use the actual words there, but
say, you know, things like the first criteria [sic] is about this, the
second criteria [sic] about that, the third criteria [sic] is about
that, and so you need to go back and look at what the criteria [sic] is
asking ... (Interview 1)
In this way she gives more information to students about the
criteria and makes connections between tasks and the criteria. She
references the assessment criteria and standards in her discussions and
in doing so, she mediates the criteria for her students.
Susan's criteria and standards (Figure 2) are also an
interpretation of the official assessment criteria and standards:
34. T ... I think it's informed by what I think is important
(Interview 2)
Later in the same interview, Susan contradicts her description
thus:
46. T Yeah, and I'd say I've gone back here then and said
okay, have I covered most of the things in here (assessment criteria and
standards), but my first point of reference would have been what I,
myself, and what I felt was lacking in previous . (Interview 2)
Susan makes the point that the assessment criteria and standards
are secondary to her own view of what is important in the task. They are
also informed by her experiences teaching this unit of work to other
student cohorts in the past. She can be heard prioritising the
explicitness of criteria, but in terms of creating a version of the
criteria that aligns with her view of what is important.
Susan's authoring of her own criteria and standards is
therefore an interpretive process:
38. T And structure, um, so I was at pains to point out that the
headline reflected the article and they're asked in this to
position the reader, that's an important (). Most of these go on
about positioning your reader to (reading from task sheet) 'In your
feature article you will construct a persuasive text which positions
readers to agree with your views' so I've tried to reinforce
that there (Susan's criteria and standards). (Interview 2)
Susan prioritises certain task features revealing what she
considers valuable in the task. As can be seen in Table 1, there are
significant differences between the official criteria and the two
documents Susan generated. Instead of the official statement of three
criteria in the assessment criteria and standards, Susan includes five
criteria that have some correlation to the original document, but which
give emphasis to different aspects of the task: purpose, structure,
language, subject matter and text construction. The self-assessment
checklist includes six elements that Susan identifies as constituting an
appropriate response to the task.
To highlight the lack of direct correspondence between the
different documents, Table 2 presents the first criterion of the
assessment criteria and standards and juxtaposes this with relevant
criteria from Susan's criteria and standards and a relevant
checkpoint from the standards and self-assessment checklist.
Susan's criteria and standards provide different information about
the task from both other documents. For example, the discussion of
subject matter becomes a focus on faithfulness of character portrayal, a
sufficiency of subject matter and a translation of the original text
(bolded in Table 2). Susan selects terminology to discuss quality using
terms that are not included in the task sheet or assessment criteria and
standards (indicated here in bold), but are consistent with her view of
what is important in a feature article: it informs and analyses; it
translates the text; it uses stylistically appropriate language; the
headline reflects the main point; the expression is clear and fluent;
and discourses are consistent with those in the original text. The
complex inter-relatedness of criteria across the three documents is
evidenced, with several criteria from Susan's criteria and
standards aligning with criterion one. While a direct reference to
discourse is not a feature of the assessment criteria and standards used
to make judgements of the students' assessment pieces, or the task
specifications, Susan prioritises this in her criteria and standards.
The three assessment documents provide different descriptions of quality
criteria for students.
Susan generates criteria and standards for 'most' units
of work, but reports that she does not make summative assessment
checklists available as frequently. She describes the use of the
checklist as follows:
66. T ... and I've said okay, this is what an 'A'
standard looks like and here's a checklist you can use that sort of
ties in with that. (Interview 2)
She describes making explicit connections between exemplars and the
checklist, indicating to students that the checklist can be used to make
judgements and to recognise the features of a quality performance. That
the checklist is an interpretation of the assessment criteria and
standards is evidenced in the second checklist point in Figure 3: Does
it have an [sic] persuasive objective and an obvious thesis/main point?
(Do you position the reader?). This correlates with all three assessment
criteria in the assessment criteria and standards: knowledge and control
of texts in their contexts; knowledge and control of textual features;
and knowledge and application of the constructedness of texts. The
checklist also includes the additional terms, bolded above, that do not
appear in Susan's criteria and standards.
Susan gives emphasis to matching student understanding to teacher
understanding about task expectations through pedagogical formative
strategies such as small group examination of exemplars of a written
task to assign a standard. Susan's criteria and standards do not
include detailed, articulated standards expressed as descriptions of the
criteria, as can be seen in Figure 1. This is a model of criteria and
standards reminiscent of criteria specifications in Queensland in the
1980s, before teachers were required to produce task-specific assessment
criteria and standards. Due to the absence of defined standards provide
by the teacher, students must therefore make judgements, co-constructing
group versions of standards by identifying features and matching these
to the criteria and standards.
Susan's stated purposes are wide ranging:
52. T I'm wanting them to be able to see, there's a
couple of things, in a sneaky way, I'm wanting those kids that seem
to think that their 'C' level work is fantastic, get them to
see what an 'A' looks like and get them to see that hey, this
is the standard because a lot of them don't. But also for them just
to be able to identify what we're looking for, that these are the
things we're looking for. And interestingly, most of them concur
with the marks, there are very few aberrations from the kind of marks
that I've given them and they can immediately see-they can
immediately rank them in terms of 'A', 'B',
'C', um, with a few exceptions.
Figure 3. Self-assessment checklist generated by Susan.
Checklist:
Before you submit your final draft, use the following checklist to
ensure that you have appropriately addressed the requirements of
the assignment:
[] Is your argument both informative and analytical? (Does it
include analysis of events and prosecution and defence arguments?)
[] Does it have an persuasive objective and an obvious thesis/main
point? (Do you position the reader?)
[] Does it follow the out lined structure for feature article?
[] Is your vocabulary well-chosen, reflecting an educated tone?
[] Is expression clear and fluent and technical aspects of language
accurate?
[] Is your translation of the plot reflective of the
characters traits and motivations from the original text?
As described here, Susan uses this activity as a tool to build
knowledge of standards against her unofficial, teacher-generated
criteria, expressing the standards as letter grades, expectations of
quality and teacher judgements. Susan also encourages students to read
'A' standard written exemplars to assist their construction of
their own written summative tasks.
Susan provides students with a verbal description of an
'A' standard spoken performance. Students gain experience with
standards as they assess their peers using Susan's explication of
the 'A' standard, as well as the unofficial criteria and
standards she has generated:
159. T ... once they've finished their draft I try and get
them say in a couple of lessons before the orals to each get up and
present say two paragraphs of their speech and then get their class to,
you know, offer feedback.
This activity also contributes towards the development of
students' evaluative expertise, with students matching these
part-rehearsals with Susan's criteria and standards.
Despite the strong emphasis given to the activities that develop
students' skills in this way, Susan does not have a larger view of
the use of the assessment criteria and standards or her criteria and
standards in self-assessment, a finding explored in detail in the study.
While this seems to be a contradiction in her practices, it is in
keeping with her strongly held view of student dependence, as expressed
during the interviews.
Ros--assessment artefacts and interpretation and mediation of
expected quality
Ros's approach to expected quality and the criteria for
performance is a process of mediation and interpretation. Similar to
Susan, Ros reports that students have difficulties accessing the
assessment criteria and standards authored by the Subject Coordinator:
253. R So, would you ever put these in front of them in class, the
criteria and standards?
254. T Um. Well, in the sense that when I give out a task sheet.
256. T I tend not to go through them every time [each unit of work]
because they switch off, they just don't engage. Suddenly,
you've got a room full of blank faces (2) and bear in mind, that
they've been having one of these since Grade 8. It's got more
complex and complicated as they've gone along ... (Interview 1)
As can be seen in this talk segment, despite the students being
given the assessment criteria and standards at the beginning of each
unit of work, Ros does not incorporate them in her teaching. This is the
case even though these are to be used for judging the quality of their
work and awarding a final grade. Students are therefore at a distance
from the official criteria and standards, possibly precluding students
from accessing them for formative assessment purposes, independently of
Ros.
Ros identifies the importance of criteria and standards, focusing
on assessment artefacts through teacher-directed talk about expected
quality. According to her account, the assessment criteria and standards
frame her feedback on homework tasks, as well as the class activities
she asks students to participate in as they develop and improve content
knowledge and skills. In contrast with Susan, Ros reports that she
routinely distributes only 'A' standard exemplars of written
summative assessment tasks:
45. T Um. I'll read it through, um, pointing out, it seems to
be more teacher directed I suppose, pointing out what makes it a
favourable piece of work. By then we would have, supposing it's a
feature article, um, we would have looked at the-the elements of the
feature article so that then they can see, so I'll sort of point
those [out]. (Interview 2)
As described in this talk segment, there is some scope for students
to develop evaluative expertise as Ros 'points out' the
qualities of a fine performance. However, students are reliant on the
judgements made by Ros and elaborated through classroom discussions led
by her in relation to 'A' standard written work. Limited
emphasis is given to students using criteria and standards to make
judgements on written summative assessment task exemplars.
There are mode-specific differences in her practices relative to
the development of evaluative expertise using assessment criteria and
standards. Students do not see full exemplars of spoken tasks, but Ros
variously provides parts, or sections of similar spoken presentations
that are taken to represent high level or incompetent work. According to
Ros's reports, these are the only examples provided for students of
non-'A' standard work. This indicates the different status of
spoken assessment which she reports cannot receive the same level of
teacher feedback on performance elements as written tasks. Her submitted
artefacts also included an example of alternative criteria and standards
employed in a peer-assessment spoken activity that involved students
making judgements according to criteria:
92. T Yeah, well, the idea is to feedback what is it that the
person is trying to persuade you to do, the class has to tell them that.
Um, the other thing they have to feedback is, did they fulfil the steps
of the introductory, you know, orientation phase, and did they fulfil
the steps of the conclusion.
93. R So you give them those clear criteria?
94. T Yeah. (Interview 2)
The criteria provided were generic criteria that Ros had used
previously in another setting in a different sector (Figure 4). Ros
reports that the use of such documents for peer-assessment purposes does
not occur regularly, but she employed this particular document for this
unit because she had found it useful in the past in another site. In
this way understandings about quality are transferable across sites and
sectors, from Technical and Further Education (TAFE) to secondary
schooling, and across assessment tasks. However, it is clear that the
criteria used to develop students' evaluative expertise during
spoken activities are not linked to the official assessment criteria. As
shown in Figure 4, Ros's substitute criteria focus on specific
elements of the task, and present these elements in language different
from that used in the official criteria and standards. Nor do the
substitute criteria include a focus on discourses, cultural assumptions
and reader positioning, as foregrounded in the third assessment
criterion. The four standards descriptors (excellent, above average,
satisfactory, unsatisfactory) do not correlate with the five assessment
standards as expressed in the school's assessment criteria and
standards (A, B, C, D, E).
As explained by Ros, her formative pedagogical practices are
focused almost exclusively on the opportunity to practise skills to be
used in the summative assessment piece at the end of the unit and on the
provision of feedback in order to improve summative assessment drafts.
Discussion
As outlined earlier, the relationship between formative assessment
and summative assessment is a core tenet of the Queensland system and
the consideration of formative assessment as a classroom process
involving defined criteria and standards and the development of
students' evaluative expertise and increasing independence are
given weight in English syllabuses (QBSSSS, 2002, 2010). According to
these policy documents and subject English-specific formative assessment
literature (Marshall, 2004, 2007; Marshall & Wiliam, 2006) the
teacher has a role in developing students' increasing independence
by developing their understandings of quality and how to progress in
English through a range of examples of quality. The Syllabus foregrounds
the teachers' role in assisting students to understand and use
assessment criteria and standards for improvement.
The review of literature revealed that a lack of clarity in
assessment criteria was an impediment to secondary students' use of
self-assessment (Broadfoot et al., 1988). The importance of clarity and
transparency of assessment criteria was emphasised in research showing
strong connections between learning, student self-assessment and
explicit criteria (Black et al., 2000; Frederiksen & Collins, 1989;
Kirton et al., 2007; OECD, 2005; Rust et al., 2003; Sadler, 1989;
Shepard, 2000). The cases presented here reveal that the language
demands of assessment terminology present barriers to the teachers'
and students' use of the official assessment criteria and standards
for formative assessment purposes.
Both teachers therefore mediate the language of assessment for
their students. Susan does this formally by generating substitute
criteria to build students' 'guild knowledge' (Sadler,
1989), through experience with examples of quality. The development of
guild knowledge is considered routine practice in subject English
(Marshall, 2004, 2007) and is in keeping with the view that exemplars of
various levels of performance are useful to indicate the possibilities
for performance (Gipps, 1994; Sadler, 2009a). While Ros provides
concrete examples as advocated by Black et al. (2004), her students do
not routinely gain experience of a range of examples of quality through
written exemplars. Moreover, Ros mediates both the assessment criteria
and her understanding of quality through teacher exposition. The
students' access to guild knowledge is restricted by limited
engagement with the breadth of standards.
Both teachers reveal that the official assessment criteria and
standards used for grading are not sufficiently transparent for students
to engage with them. Rather than developing a working knowledge of the
assessment criteria and standards, Ros and Susan's students are
reliant upon their respective teachers to interpret and mediate the
assessment meta-language.
Both teachers offer alternative frameworks as part of classroom
activities. The data has shown, however, that these frameworks do not
necessarily align with the assessment criteria and standards, and
instead privilege each teacher's interpretation of the demands of
the task, influenced by past teaching experiences.
Hay and Macdonald (2008) found teachers of Year 12 Health and
Physical Education interpreted and mediated assessment criteria and
standards for themselves, rendering the original criteria and standards
inaccessible to students. The analysis presented here shows that
assessment criteria and standards are similarly interpreted and mediated
by the English teachers in this study. Students have access to the
official assessment criteria and standards documents that are
distributed at the beginning of each unit of work, together with the
task specifications sheet. Unless students independently work with the
official assessment criteria and standards, their use as part of
classroom activities is not encouraged. In the classrooms of these two
teachers, moves were not as yet being made towards involving students in
the design of assessment criteria and standards as a means of developing
students' self-assessment skills as advocated in the literature
(Andrade et al., 2009, Black et al., 2000).
Conclusion
This paper provides insights into teachers' understanding of
the uses of assessment criteria and standards and the ways in which they
mediate official assessment frameworks for their Senior English
students. The present study has some limitations providing, as it does,
a snapshot of teacher practice from a particular educational system, in
one state of Australia. The research was undertaken in two school sites
in regional Queensland, and presents two case studies. There is no
intent to generalise beyond the cases which provide detailed insights
into formative assessment practices in the classrooms of two teachers.
The purpose of this paper is to raise issues that are situated in this
context but have resonance for the wider national context. Readers from
outside of the Queensland system may wish to consider the
messages/findings presented here about the use of assessment criteria
and standards for formative purposes by teachers and students, as the
implementation of nationalised standards progresses.
The study shows that these teachers' lack of ease with the
language of assessment criteria and standards influences their formative
assessment practices and ultimately determines the extent to which they
develop their students' self-evaluative skills. Klenowski (2011)
observes that 'the use of achievement standards for assessment and
reporting will further require the development of teachers'
assessment literacy and assessment practices' (p. 80). In this
study, assessment literacy includes an understanding of the use of
standards as a formative assessment tool for improvement and reflects
the strong messages in the literature about the horizon model of
progress in subject English (Marshall, 2004; Parr & Timperley,
2010).
The insights gained in this study lead to recommendations that
attention is given to the expansion of teachers' assessment
practices to include deliberate and systematic development of
students' evaluative expertise using the official criteria and
standards. This could be done through activities including unpacking the
language of criteria and standards by and with students, student
construction of criteria and standards, systematic use of a range of
exemplars, and a focus on strengthening peer--and self-assessment
skills. Such an approach could be developed through teacher professional
development. Consideration also needs to be given to the importance of
developing pre-service teachers' formative assessment practices
including specific development of formative assessment skills using
assessment criteria and standards.
Queensland Senior English teachers bring to the implementation of
the Australian Curriculum their long history of experience with
centralised standards, including the interpretation of assessment policy
relating to standards into classroom formative assessment practices, and
experience in the use of standards for moderation purposes. It is
evident that, for the teachers who participated in this study, students
are not yet fully engaging with the assessment criteria and standards
for self-improvement. The lessons gained from these cases could be
applied to teachers' use of the national standards in quality
assessment practice.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the two anonymous reviewers who provided detailed and
helpful feedback to improve the quality of this paper.
References
Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (ACARA). (2013).
Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from http:// www.acara.edu
.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum.pdf.
Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y. & Akawi, R. (2009).
Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The
Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287-301.
Black, P. & Harrison, C. (2001). Self and peer assessment and
taking responsibility: the science student's role in formative
assessment. School Science Review, 83, 43-49.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C. & Wiliam, D. (2000). The
King's Medway Oxfordshire formative assessment project. Paper
presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference,
Cardiff: Wales, (September, 2000).
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D.
(2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the
classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 921.
Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Broadfoot, P., James, M., McMeeking, S., Nuttall, D. & Stierer,
B. (1988). Records of achievement: Report of the national evaluation of
pilot schemes. London, UK: HMSO.
Brookhart, S. (2001). Successful students' formative and
summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education:
Principles, policy and practice, 8(2), 153169.
Department for Education and Child Development. (2012). Reporting
on Australian Curriculum: Guidelines for DECD schools R-10. Retrieved
from http://www.decd. sa.gov.au/assessment/pages/Guidelines
Frederiksen, J.R. & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to
educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18, 27-32.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational
assessment. London, UK: The Falmer Press.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and
assessment for learning--tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal,
16(2), 207-223.
Harlen, W. & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning:
Differences and relationships between formative and summative
assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy and practice,
4(3), 365-379.
Hay, P.J. & Macdonald, D. (2008). (Mis)appropriations of
criteria and standards-referenced assessment in a performance-based
subject. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy and practice,
15(2), 153-168.
Hodgen, J. & Marshall, B. (2005). Assessment for learning in
English and Mathematics: A comparison. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2),
153-176.
Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P. & Stobart,
G. (2007). Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Piloting assessment
for learning in some Scottish primary schools. British Educational
Research Journal, 33(4), 605-627.
Klenowski, V. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability
era: Queensland, Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1),
78-83.
Klenowski, V. & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Standards, teacher
judgement and moderation in contexts of national curriculum and
assessment reform. Assessment Matters, 2, 107131.
Marshall, B. (2004). Goals or horizons--the conundrum of
progression in English: Or a possible way of understanding formative
assessment in English. Curriculum Journal, 15(2), 101-113.
Marshall, B. (2007). Formative classroom assessment in English, the
humanities and social sciences. In J.H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative
classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 136-152). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Marshall, B. & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with
assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in
Education, 21(2), 133149.
Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2006). English inside the black box:
Assessment for learning in the English classroom. London, UK: nferNelson
Publishing Co. Ltd.
McDonald, B. & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self assessment
on achievement: The effects of self-assessment training on performance
in external examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy
and practice, 10(2), 209-220.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
(2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary
classrooms. Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_21571361_
49995565_34365415_1_1_1_1,00.html
Parr, J.M. & Timperley, H.S. (2010). Feedback to writing,
assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing
Writing, 15, 68-85.
Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. (2002).
English senior syllabus. Brisbane, Qld: QBSSSS.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2010). English senior syllabus.
Retrieved from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/11703.html
Queensland Studies Authority. (2011). Assessment, standards and
reporting: Implementing the Australian Curriculum P-10. Retrieved from
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/ downloads/p_10/ac_imp_p-10_ass_stnd_rep.pdf
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural
Science, 28, 4-13.
Rust, C., Price, M. & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving
students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment
criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
28(2), 147-164.
Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of
instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
Sadler, D.R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the
territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy and practice,
5(1), 77-84.
Sadler, D.R. (2009a). Thinking differently about assessment: Why
feedback is not enough. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of
International Association of Educational Assessment (IAEA), Brisbane,
Qld., (September, 2009).
Sadler, D.R. (2009b). Transforming holistic assessment and grading
into a vehicle for complex learning. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment,
learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 45-63). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability
in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
35(5), 535-550.
Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture.
Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
Wiliam, D. (2002). Thinking through assessment: An interview with
Dylan Wiliam, London, UK: National Association of Teachers of English.
Wyatt-Smith, C. (2001). Examining how evaluative talk functions in
instructional sequences. In J.J. Cumming & C. Wyatt-Smith. (Eds.),
Literacy and the curriculum: Success in senior secondary schooling (pp.
117-131). Melbourne, Victoria: ACER.
Wyatt-Smith, C. & Klenowski, V. (2013). Explicit, latent and
meta-criteria: types of criteria at play in professional judgement
practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy and practice (In
press).
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Joanne Dargusch
Central Queensland University
Jo Dargusch has extensive experience as an English teacher. Her
thesis, completed at Griffith University in 2012, examined the formative
assessment practices of Senior English teachers. She is currently
researching undergraduate students' use of feedback for
self-assessment and goal setting, and the use of on-line formative
assessment tools to engage distance education students. She lectures at
Central Queensland University.
Table 1. Comparison of assessment criteria (authored by HOD), Susan's
criteria, and self-assessment checklist
Assessment criteria Susan's criteria Self-assessment
(authored by HOD) checklist
Criterion one: knowledge Purpose Informative and
and control of texts Structure analytical argument
in their contexts Language Persuasive objective
Criterion two: Subject matter and obvious thesis/
knowledge and control Text construction main point
of textual features Structure of genre
Criterion three: Vocabulary
knowledge and Expression and
application of the technical aspects
constructedness of language
of texts Translation of the
original text
Table 2. Comparison of criterial descriptors
Assessment criteria Susan's criteria Self-assessment
and standards and standards checklist
Criterion one Subject matter: Is your translation
You have Is the construction of the plot
demonstrated that of characters reflective of the
meanings in a faithful to the characters (sic)
feature article are original text? traits and
shaped by its Does it include motivations from the
purpose, genre, and sufficient subject original text?
register choices matter from the
through: play?
Selecting subject Does it effectively
matter relevant to translate the text
a character in into a modern
Shakespearean context?
Tragedy. Language:
Generally Is the language used
establishing and appropriate
maintaining the stylistically? (i.e.
roles and does it suit that of
relationships of a journalist of a
a journalist and an metropolitan
audience of newspaper addressing
newspaper readers an audience?)
Incorporating Structure
the main concepts Does the article
into your feature represent an
article obvious viewpoint
regarding the trial
and its outcome?
Figure 1. Assessment criteria and standards generated by Head of
Department (Case Report--Susan)
YEAR 12 SEMESTER 1, 2003--SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY--PUBLIC TEXT:
FEATURE ARTICLE
Criteria A B
CONTROL OF You have demonstrated You have demonstrated
TEXTS IN THEIR that feature article is that meanings in a
CONTEXTS shared by its purpose, feature article are
genre, and register shared by purpose, genre,
choices through: and register choices
through:
Selecting substantial
subject matter relevant Selecting sufficient
to a character in subject matter relevant
Shakespearean Tragedy. to a character in
Shakespearean Tragedy.
Establishing and
exploiting the roles Establishing and
and relationships of maintaining the roles
a journalist and an and relationships of
audience of newspaper a journalist and an
readers audience of newspaper
readers
Skilfully incorporating
key concepts into your Effectively incorporating
feature article key concepts into your
feature article
CONTROL OF You have employed You have employed
TEXTUAL very effective language mostly effective
FEATURES choices in your feature language choices in your
article through: feature article through:
The sequencing of The sequencing of
subject matter according subject matter according
to generic structure to generic structure
Cohesive ties that link Cohesive ties that link
ideas with discernment ideas with discernment
Supporting opinions and Supporting opinions
ideas with outstanding and ideas with fine
argumentation and argumentation and
evidence evidence
An imaginative, A range of appropriate
extensive range of vocabulary choices using
appropriate vocabulary conventional spelling
choices using
conventional spelling A wide range of
appropriate clause and
A very wide range of sentence structures
appropriate clause and with appropriate
sentence structures paragraphing and
with accomplished punctuation
paragraphing and
punctuation Skilful layout
Skilful and imaginative
layout
KNOWLEDGE AND You have made subtle You have fine
UNDERSTANDING and complex distinctions distinctions through:
OF TEXT through:
CONSTRUCTION Evaluating the ways
Thoroughly evaluating in which a character
the ways in which in Shakespearean
a character in Tragedy is a construct
Shakespearean Tragedy of individuals, groups,
is a construct of times and places
individuals, groups,
times and places Evaluating and
employing the
Skilfully evaluating knowledge that texts
and exploiting the are created with the
knowledge that texts assumption readers
are created with the have certain knowledge,
assumption readers backgrounds, values,
have certain knowledge, beliefs and attitudes
backgrounds, values,
beliefs and attitudes Evaluating and
employing the
Comprehensively understanding that texts
evaluating and position reader
exploiting the
understanding that texts
position reader
Criteria C D
CONTROL OF You have demonstrated You have demonstrated
TEXTS IN THEIR that meanings in a that meanings in a
CONTEXTS feature article are feature article are
shared by its purpose, shared by purpose, genre,
genre, and register and register choices
choices through: through:
Selecting subject matter Selecting subject matter
relevant to a character relevant to a character
in Shakespearean Tragedy. in Shakespearean Tragedy.
Generally establishing Establishing and
and maintaining the sometimes maintaining
roles and relationships the roles and
of a journalist and an relationships of a
audience of newspaper journalist and an
readers audience of newspaper
readers
Incorporating the main
concepts into your Incorporating some
feature article concepts into your
feature article
CONTROL OF You have employed You have employed
TEXTUAL mostly effective some appropriate
FEATURES language choices in your language choices in your
feature article through: feature article through:
Mainly sequencing Sometimes sequencing
subject matter according subject matter according
to generic structure to generic structure
Link ideas cohesively Linking ideas with some
lapses
Usually supporting
opinions and ideas with Occasionally supporting
fine argumentation and opinions and ideas with
evidence fine argumentation and
evidence
A basic range of
appropriate vocabulary A range of basic
choices using vocabulary choices using
conventional spelling conventional spelling
with lapses
A range of appropriate
clause and sentence Clause, sentence
structures with structures, paragraphing
appropriate and punctuation with
paragraphing and some lapses
punctuation
Some attention to layout
Appropriate layout
KNOWLEDGE AND You have made general You have made very
UNDERSTANDING distinctions through: general distinctions
OF TEXT through:
CONSTRUCTION Identifying the ways
in which a character Sometimes identifying
in Shakespearean the ways in which
Tragedy is a construct a character in
of individuals, groups, Shakespearean Tragedy
times and places is a construct of
individuals, groups,
Evaluating and times and places
employing the Identifying and
knowledge that texts sometimes using the
are created with the knowledge that texts
assumption readers are created with the
have certain knowledge, assumption readers
backgrounds, values, have certain knowledge,
beliefs and attitudes backgrounds, values,
beliefs and attitudes
Evaluating and
employing the Identifying and
understanding that texts sometimes using the
position reader understanding that texts
position reader
Criteria E
CONTROL OF You have sometimes
TEXTS IN THEIR demonstrated that
CONTEXTS meanings in a feature
article are shared by
purpose, genre, and
register choices through:
Selecting subject matter
relevant to a character in
Shakespearean Tragedy.
Identifying the roles
and relationships of
a journalist and an
audience of newspaper
readers
Incorporating few
concepts into your
feature article
CONTROL OF You have made few
TEXTUAL language choices in your
FEATURES feature article through:
Not sequencing subject
matter according to
generic structure
Linking some ideas
Rarely supporting
opinions and ideas with
argumentation and
evidence
An narrow range of
basic vocabulary choices
using some conventional
spelling
Clause, sentence
structures, paragraphing
and punctuation with
frequent lapses
Minimal attention to
layout
KNOWLEDGE AND You have made few
UNDERSTANDING distinctions through:
OF TEXT
CONSTRUCTION Rarely identifying
the ways in which
a character in
Shakespearean Tragedy
is a construct of
individuals, groups,
times and places
Sometimes identifying
that texts are created
with the assumption
readers have
certain knowledge,
backgrounds, values,
beliefs and attitudes
Sometimes identifying
that texts position
reader
Figure 2. Susan's criteria and standards
Feature Article Marking Criteria:
Criteria A B
Purpose: Is highly Achieves
* Does it represent an argument effective in effectively
that informs and analyses the achieving
events of the trial?
* Does it attempt to persuade
you to accept a certain point
of view?
Structure:
* Does the headline adequately
reflect the main point of the
article?
* Does the article present an
obvious viewpoint regarding the
trial and its outcome?
* Does it comply with the
structure of a feature article?
* Does the physical layout comply
with that of a newspaper feature
article?
Language:
* Is the language used
appropriate stylistically (i.e.
Does it suit that of a
journalist of a metropolitan
newspaper addressing an
audience?)
* Is the vocabulary well-chosen
and extensive?
* Is the expression clear and
fluent?
* Is the spelling, grammar and
punctuation accurate?
Subject matter:
* Is the construction of
characters faithful to the
original text?
* Does it include sufficient
subject matter from the play?
* Does it effectively translate
the text into a modern context?
Text construction:
* Does the article position the
reader to accept a certain
viewpoint?
* Are the discourses consistent
with those in the original text?
Criteria C D
Purpose: Achieves Achieves to a
* Does it represent an argument satisfactorily limited degree
that informs and analyses the
events of the trial?
* Does it attempt to persuade
you to accept a certain point
of view?
Structure:
* Does the headline adequately
reflect the main point of the
article?
* Does the article present an
obvious viewpoint regarding the
trial and its outcome?
* Does it comply with the
structure of a feature article?
* Does the physical layout comply
with that of a newspaper feature
article?
Language:
* Is the language used
appropriate stylistically (i.e.
Does it suit that of a
journalist of a metropolitan
newspaper addressing an
audience?)
* Is the vocabulary well-chosen
and extensive?
* Is the expression clear and
fluent?
* Is the spelling, grammar and
punctuation accurate?
Subject matter:
* Is the construction of
characters faithful to the
original text?
* Does it include sufficient
subject matter from the play?
* Does it effectively translate
the text into a modern context?
Text construction:
* Does the article position the
reader to accept a certain
viewpoint?
* Are the discourses consistent
with those in the original text?
Criteria E
Purpose: Achieves
* Does it represent an argument to a very
that informs and analyses the limited
events of the trial? degree
* Does it attempt to persuade
you to accept a certain point
of view?
Structure:
* Does the headline adequately
reflect the main point of the
article?
* Does the article present an
obvious viewpoint regarding the
trial and its outcome?
* Does it comply with the
structure of a feature article?
* Does the physical layout comply
with that of a newspaper feature
article?
Language:
* Is the language used
appropriate stylistically (i.e.
Does it suit that of a
journalist of a metropolitan
newspaper addressing an
audience?)
* Is the vocabulary well-chosen
and extensive?
* Is the expression clear and
fluent?
* Is the spelling, grammar and
punctuation accurate?
Subject matter:
* Is the construction of
characters faithful to the
original text?
* Does it include sufficient
subject matter from the play?
* Does it effectively translate
the text into a modern context?
Text construction:
* Does the article position the
reader to accept a certain
viewpoint?
* Are the discourses consistent
with those in the original text?
Figure 4. Assessment criteria and standards (A standard) and Ros's
substitute criteria and standards for spoken formative activity.
Persuasive Speech A
KNOWLEDGE & CONTROL You show knowledge that meanings in texts
OF TEXTS IN THEIR are shaped by purpose, cultural context &
CONTEXTS social situation by:
exploiting the patterns & conventions
of a spoken exposition for your own
purposes
selecting & synthesising substantial &
relevant subject matter
interpreting, inferring from, analysing &
evaluating information & ideas in
considerable depth
exploiting your role as speaker persuading
a nominated audience in a specific context
KNOWLEDGE & CONTRO You show that you know how to use textual
OF TEXTUAL FEATURES features appropriate to the purpose, genre
& register by:
exploiting the sequencing & organisation
of subject matter
making discerning use of cohesive ties to
emphasise ideas & connect parts of texts
exploiting an extensive range of apt
vocabulary
combining a wide range of clause & sentence
structures for specific effects, while
sustaining grammatical accuracy
integrating visual & auditory features to
enhance meaning in your presentation, if
appropriate
sustaining use of a wide range of
spoken/signed and non-verbal features
such as:
--pronunciation, phrasing and pausing
for emphasis, audibility and clarity,
volume, pace
--facial expressions, gestures, proximity,
stance, movement
KNOWLEDGE & APPLICATION You show that you know the ways in which
OF THE CONSTRUCTEDNESS texts are selectively constructed by:
OF TEXTS exploiting discourses appropriate to your
persuasion
exploiting the ways cultural assumptions,
values, beliefs and attitudes underpin
texts
making purposeful and discerning choices
that effectively invite listeners to take
up positions
