English teachers' perceptions of literacy assessment in the first year of secondary school.

Moni, Karen ; van Kraayenoord, Christina ; Baker, Carolyn 等

This study set out to investigate teachers' perceptions of the school-based literacy assessment systems used in Queensland state schools since the introduction of an English syllabus in 1994 which focusses on teaching and assessing literacy developmentally from years 1-10. The study found that when Year 7 and Year 8 teachers explicitly teach principles of assessment derived from the syllabus to their students, involve students in the assessment process, share their assessment practices, and liaise closely with each other, clarity and consistency of literacy assessment programs in primary and secondary schools are enhanced. Furthermore, the authors propose that achieving these goals is crucial to ensuring that literacy assessment in secondary school is a positive experience for incoming students.

Introduction

The move to secondary school is a period of great educational change for many children in Australia, where the majority attend state schools. The change involves moving from primary schools where they are well known to their classroom teacher and peers to larger, subject-oriented and more anonymous secondary schools. While the step takes place at the end of Year 6 in most states, in Queensland it occurs at the end of Year 7.

Changes the children experience at this time include differences in school organisation, classroom climate, instructional practices, and peer and teacher relations. While these factors may combine to make the transition potentially traumatic and detrimental to motivation and educational achievement (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Blyth, Simmons & Carlton-Ford, 1983; Felner, Primavera & Cauce, 1981), many students do, in fact, enjoy the transition and do not experience a decline in academic performance (Cairney, Lowe & Sproats, 1994; Power & Cotterell, 1981).

Research has suggested that the differences in assessment practices between primary and secondary schools may be major influences on the academic performance of students (Crockett, Petersen, Graber, Schulenberg & Ebata, 1989). Changes in grades and levels of achievement in literacy, specifically downward trends, have been the major factors researchers have considered in arguing that transferring to secondary schools presents academic challenges to students (Felner, Primavera & Cauce, 1981). In their review of transition studies, Hargreaves and Earl (1990) suggested that:

because inconsistency in assessment practice can lead to confusion and disappointment in the Transition Years as students transfer between schools, establishing clarity and consistency in the point of reference for assessment is an important priority. (p. 142)

In order to achieve clarity and consistency, more information needs to be made available in the educational community about teachers' perceptions of their literacy assessment programs in the first year of secondary school. The need for greater dissemination of information across the sectors of schooling has been a catch-cry of researchers who have for many years been advocating increased and focussed contact between primary and secondary schoolteachers (Cairney, Lowe & Sproats, 1994; Eltis, Low, Adams & Cooney, 1987; Power & Cotterell, 1981; Stewart-Dore, 1996). At a time of great public debate about the decline or otherwise of literacy standards (Green, Hodgens & Luke, 1997), understanding more about literacy and literacy assessment in different sectors of schooling enables teachers not only to teach and assess literacy consistently and coherently, but also to be confident and competent advocates of their practices (Stewart-Dore, 1996).

Further, the dissemination of information needs to be on-going and responsive to changes in literacy curriculum and assessment practices. The research reported in this article is the first study to investigate teachers' perceptions of literacy assessment on a large scale since the introduction in 1994 of an English syllabus in Queensland which focussed on teaching and assessing literacy developmentally from years 1-10. The first aim was to broaden the understanding of educators at all levels of some of the issues that Year 8 teachers, that is, those teaching students in the first year of secondary school, perceive they face in assessing literacy in Year 8. The second aim was to develop an understanding of teachers' perceptions of the expectations and problems of their in-coming students when facing literacy assessment in secondary school for the first time. Such information could assist both Year 7 and Year 8 teachers and administrators to plan literacy assessment programs and tasks responsive to the needs of teachers and students in primary and secondary school.

The context of this article is the school-based assessment system used in state schools in Queensland; the following section provides a brief overview of this system with specific reference to literacy assessment in English.

School-based assessment in Queensland

Assessment in Queensland primary and secondary schools has been school-based since the early 1970s. In this system, schools share the responsibility for developing, implementing and assessing the curriculum with the state's central education authority (Maxwell, 1995). One of the tenets of the assessment system has been the use of criteria-based assessment in which teachers assess an individual student's performance in a specific dimension of a task against a pre-determined set of standards (McMeniman, 1986; Sadler, 1986). Historically, teachers in secondary schools have had more experience with developing and using criteria in assessment than primary teachers (Moni, Tonkin & van Kraayenoord, 1996). However, since the introduction of the English Syllabus for Years 1 to 10 (Queensland Department of Education, 1994), teachers in primary and secondary schools have been expected to use criteria to generate information about `the nature of English texts that students compose and comprehend, and the processes that students use in composing and comprehending these texts' (Queensland Department of Education, 1994: p. 53).

Assessment in English is centred around thematic units of work which last approximately four to six weeks. Usually, the students are given the assessment task and the criteria at the start of the unit. The main means of communicating this information is through a task sheet. Classroom activities and study then focus on completing the task under the guidance of the teacher (van Kraayenoord & Moni, 1997).

Interest in adopting this form of assessment for large-scale purposes has developed in other education systems beyond Australia. In particular, there has been increasing advocacy for changes to classroom assessment in the United States, with criterion-referenced and performance-based assessments suggested as alternatives to standardised testing. A third aim of this study was therefore to provide information about some of the issues arising for teachers in using criteria-based assessment in the classroom.

Research methodology and data analysis

A survey was developed as part of a doctoral study by the first author investigating students' and teachers' constructions of literacy assessment during the first year of secondary school. The survey was designed to provide background data about teachers' perceptions of their assessment program and the expectations and problems faced by their incoming Year 8 students.

Open and closed questions were developed and trialled with a small group of teachers. Amendments were made to improve clarity of the questions and ease of response. Four copies of the survey were sent to fifty public secondary schools in Queensland. One month after the first mail-out forty-four surveys (22%) had been returned. After follow-up letters were sent to these schools, further surveys were sent out to another fifty schools. A three-month deadline was imposed for the return of surveys from both mail-outs. At the end of this period 120 surveys had been returned from the total of 400 (30%). Ninety-seven were from female teachers (81%) and 23 were from male teachers (19%). One or more teachers from ninety-four schools out of the original 100 selected schools responded to the survey.

Concurrent with the survey, follow-up interviews were held with seven teachers who had volunteered to participate further in the study. The purpose of these interviews was to explore issues addressed in the survey in more depth, and a semi-structured interview proforma was developed based on the survey questions.

Data from the survey were analysed employing both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Qualitative methods were used to analyse open-ended questions. Individual comments from each response were written on a separate index card and sorted into categories and sub-themes using key words, phrases and concepts (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992), and frequencies were then generated for each category and sub-theme. An interrater reliability check of categories for each question was carried out by an independent rater: agreement for the categories ranged from 81.7 per cent to 93.4 per cent. Data from the follow-up interviews were searched using the same procedures and categories were identified providing further details and clarification of survey responses.

Results

In this article findings from questions relating to four different themes will be discussed. These are:

* teachers' perceptions of literacy assessment in Year 8

* teachers' perceptions of students' expectations about literacy assessment in Year 8

* teachers' perceptions of Year 8 students' problems with literacy assessment and

* teachers' perceptions of what students need to know and understand about assessment in Year 8.

In discussing each theme only the main categories of comments will be presented.(1)

The authors wish to emphasise in presenting this data that these results represent a 30 per cent return from a subset of English teachers at Year 8 levels in the 100 Queensland state high schools which were sent the survey. These schools represent a further subset of all Queensland state high schools. As such, the data should not be interpreted as being representative of the perceptions of all teachers in the Queensland system.

Teachers' perceptions of literacy assessment in Year 8

The findings in this part of the survey were marked by perceived tensions in teachers' accounts of the assessment program. These tensions were evident in conflicting statements about the assessment program, the teachers' autonomy, and meeting students' needs.

Teachers indicated that they liked the principles of assessment in the English syllabus documents produced by the Department of Education in Queensland (83 comments). These principles allowed them to include a range of topics and to create `balance' in their assessment programs. For example, one teacher wrote she liked the `balanced assessment program, (the) range of genres assessed, formative and summative assessment (F1/7)'.

In these comments, teachers also indicated that they appreciated the flexibility which assisted them in meeting the needs of their students, and which provided them with personal satisfaction and autonomy in their classrooms. The following comment reflects those of many teachers.

Flexibility in the assessment program is one of the best features. As long as there is coverage of a variety of genres as specified (in the syllabus) for each year level, there is a wide range of choice for individual teacher preference (F1/16).

The conditions and atmosphere surrounding assessment were also major contributors to teachers' liking for assessment (47 comments). However, for some teachers (16 comments) there was also a concern that assessment programs did not meet individual needs, especially those of lower achieving students. For example:

I am concerned that I always seem to have a group of underachieving boys and I don't seem to meet their needs. They need to be `doing' more in some ways (F1/15).

There were six comments made by teachers who indicated that they had no concerns with assessment in Year 8. However, this was a very small proportion compared to those who stated concerns about assessment (208 comments).

Difficulties caused by time constraints made up the largest group of comments (31) regarding concerns about literacy assessment in Year 8. One teacher noted that:

restrictions of time mean that I often feel very frustrated that my observations of students, re the students' literacy development, cannot be followed up in terms of intervention, individualised programs and re-assessment (F2/48).

Although teachers liked the range and balance in their assessment programs, the main concern about the nature of the program was that there was too much assessment (28 comments). As one teacher said, `I sometimes think we are assessing too much -- too often with little time left for pure enjoyment of English' (F1/20). Associated with this was the perception of limited support for and follow-up of students due to the lack of time for returning assignments and working on improving problem areas.

The teachers who responded to the survey saw few problems in the traditional literacy assessment areas of reading, writing and speaking. However, there was a perception among some teachers (11 comments) that they had limited knowledge of assessing strands of literacy such as listening and viewing with teachers admitting `that listening and viewing are not being assessed in any way [except via observation/occasional film review] (F(2/24)'. Eleven comments indicated some teachers lacked confidence in using forms of assessment such as observation, anecdotal records, and checklists, and some felt that their recording procedures were inadequate.

There was some concern expressed by teachers (7 comments) that assessment in their schools did not reflect the values they espoused in the teaching and learning activities of their own classrooms. One teacher, for example wrote the following note in response to the survey.

Sorry this has struck a nerve. There is so much which could be done so that kids are not turned off, e.g. had Year 8s enthusiastically telling myths and legends, making up their own illustrated books, presenting these to the relevant audience (self and peer-assessed) but none of this counted as assessment which had to be a 450 words, plain essay style handwritten piece. And this was just the beginning -- auugggh! The idiocy has continued and worsened. Kids are wondering why???? This may not be helpful but there are quite a few of us out here being given patronising and downright antipathetic treatment for trying to assess along wider inclusive lines (F2/3).

This finding contrasted with the earlier finding that teachers enjoyed the personal freedom, flexibility and satisfaction of their assessment programs.

Teachers' perceptions of students' expectations of literacy assessment in Year 8

Teachers perceived that students expected the literacy assessment practices in Year 8 to be either the same as or different from those they had experienced in Year 7. The largest number of comments (27) expressed the perception that students entering Year 8 expected the same kind of assessment program as occurred in Year 7. For example, as one teacher wrote:

They expect that it is going to be a continuation of primary school ie (sic) work along at your own pace. Work that was to be covered could be done in class. If the teacher didn't finish, time could be `stolen' from another subject. [They] are not aware that it would work differently (F1/18).

The second largest group of responses related to difference (23 comments). Teachers perceived there were expectations of general differences in assessment between primary and secondary school. For example, `I think they expect Year 8 exams to be vastly different and much harder than those in primary school' (F1/4). There were also a number of comments relating to specific differences in the amount (6), frequency (5), and the complexity (4) of assessment in secondary school. One teacher noted, `They seem to be unprepared for the number of assessment items and the fact that a number of assessment tasks/types are done simultaneously' (F2/41). Teachers also commented (13) on the expectations or lack of them regarding the form of assessment, whether it would be formative or summative.

Comments related to standards (37 comments) formed the next major theme with teachers reporting that students expected tasks to be more difficult than those in primary school, for example, `They expect "hard" tests. They expect Year 8 to be more difficult overall than primary school (F1/37)'. There was also a perception that students expected the work to be interesting -- `easily achievable, fun to do, relevant and worthwhile to their lives (F1/12)'. Some comments related to a perception that students did not understand how marks were awarded and how they could achieve a high grade. One teacher wrote, `Many expect that if they do very little work they will still be given a good mark (F1/34)'.

Teachers' comments (25) about the expected methods and tasks can be gathered under the heading of `a range' of tasks which included tests, projects and assignments. The following teacher's comments reflect those of many others and also indicate that the sources of information about Year 8 come from siblings and friends.

I think Year 8 students would be generally aware that they will be required to complete assignments of various sorts, but they might well also expect formal end of semester exams. These expectations would be based on reports from older siblings and friends, but since secondary school is a `new ball game' kids' expectations are fairly open (F1/21).

Finally, there were some strong perceptions that students coming in to Year 8 had no idea what to expect about assessment.

I do not think that the majority of Year 8 students would have categorised English assessment nor have such expectations. Assessment would be considered only task by task (M2/5).

Teachers' perceptions of, students' problems with literacy assessment in rear 8

Responses relating to students' problems with assessment generated by far the largest number of comments (328) for any question in the survey with all teachers except one completing the question. The main theme of the comments related to students' problems with the criteria-based assessment program (62). For example, one teacher commented, `They find it difficult to cope with the restrictions of the assessment criteria, and lack of choice, and freedom of expression (F/2/13)'. Included in this theme were comments referring to problems with criteria sheets such as not understanding the layout and terminology, failing to read the sheets closely, and not following the instructions on the task sheets. Teachers also felt that students experienced problems with the `sheer volume' and frequency of assessment. Students were also perceived to have difficulties with the formality of assessment including the concept of assignments, notions of formative and summative assessment, and understanding the relationships between assessment, recording and reporting.

The second major area of difficulty for students lay in managing all aspects of their work, in planning, following instructions, completing the task, and dealing with feedback. The inability of students to take deadlines seriously and plan their work to meet deadlines was a dominant theme. As one teacher put it, `They have problems completing assignments on time and think a due date is flexible (F1/15)'. Teachers also frequently referred to the need for students to learn to work independently.

The main difficulties that teachers perceived as relating to particular individual differences in Year 8 were weak basic skills, inadequate organisational skills, poorly developed study skills, problems with reading for meaning and with writing more than one paragraph. From one teacher's perspective, the lack of literacy skills had serious consequences.

Some of the Year 8s do not have the literacy skills to deal with the expectations of a secondary school curriculum -- some Year 8s can only look forward to failing each assessment piece [after this they have the opportunity to fail all Year 9] (M2/5).

In terms of conditions under which literacy assessment tasks were completed, three main problems were identified. These included problems with working independently, coping with less teacher assistance, and getting used to completing assessment tasks within a specific timeframe.

In relation to students' problems with the standards of work and assessment expected of them in Year 8, the themes suggest that the main problems for students lay in overestimating the role of presentation in mark allocation. As one teacher wrote, they `spend 10 hours on presentation and 20 minutes on written work (F2/18)'. Students also lacked understanding of the standards of work expected of them.

Teachers made specific comments (43) relating to problems in each strand of literacy. In tackling writing tasks they perceived that students had problems in: extended writing to meet length requirements, using the writing process, the emphasis on writing as the main mode of response in assessment, and meeting specific task requirements. Two main themes to emerge from comments about speaking dealt with issues of a lack of confidence and poor skills in speaking in front of others.

Teachers' perceptions of what students should know and understand about assessment in Year 8

The main elements of assessment that teachers perceived students needed to learn included: the principles of the assessment program and assessment procedures, their own roles in assessment, what is assessed, and the conditions surrounding assessment. The most cited principle that students needed to understand was that their performance is measured against specific criteria and what those criteria mean, in other words, `What criteria will be used and what each criteria (sic) means (F1/63)'.

Teachers commented (22 comments) that it was important for students to understand the whole assessment process, including receiving an outline of the program at the beginning of the year, so that they could appreciate how grades were awarded, and how records, profiles and folios were maintained.

The main assessment procedure students needed to know was the use of criteria sheets (17 comments). Teachers perceived that this was important because students then understood how grades were awarded, for example, `Detailed criteria sheets will help students' knowledge and understanding as to how they'll be assessed (F2/ 36)'. In addition it was thought that criteria sheets would help students know how to get the best marks.

With regard to students' roles in assessment (37 comments), the largest number of comments (11) related to students learning about teacher expectations, specifically, `My expectations about what is necessary for them to complete tasks according to criteria (F2/49)'. Students were also expected to know about organising their time, to know that they should be responsible and actively involved, and to understand that they should listen to the teacher and follow instructions.

Students should also know about and understand a range of factors related to the conditions in which assessment was undertaken, particularly the audience, context, and purpose for tasks, and how classroom time was allocated to allow students to polish and improve their assessment performance.

Teachers' responses (11 comments) also focussed on what students needed to know and understand about what was assessed. Teachers perceived that students needed to be aware of genre, in particular that assessment in English occurred in a range of genres. Linked with this were comments that students should be aware that all strands of literacy were important and therefore they needed to work consistently in each mode. Although the question focussed on teachers' perceptions of what students should know and understand, a number of comments were descriptions of how they as teachers achieved this.

Discussion

The findings reported in this survey provide useful information for educators about teachers' perceptions of literacy assessment in the first year of secondary school, and highlight implications for secondary teachers as well as for primary teachers. Teachers in the study assumed that students knew nothing about how literacy would be assessed in secondary school, that the assessment program would be new to them, and specifically that criteria-based assessment would be new. They expected that incoming students would need to learn and remember many things about assessment. One implication for primary school teachers is that by being more explicit about their assessment practices to students in their final year of primary school they can share the responsibility for teaching students about the nature of assessment, the procedures, and standards of assessment which should be consistent across the sectors. Such explicit teaching should not be seen as `preparing students' for secondary school but rather as a means of developing consistent and coherent assessment in primary and secondary school literacy programs.

Several teachers identified problems that they perceived students brought to secondary school from primary school. These included limited literacy skills of individual students, their negative attitudes towards literacy, and their poor organisational skills. There was also a perception that Year 7 teachers did not teach their students much about assessment in the primary school. Whether or not these perceptions are accurate, they clearly reflect secondary school-teachers' stereotypes of what happens in primary schools (Hargreaves & Earl, 1990). However, there was little indication in the survey responses that teachers had any in-depth first-hand knowledge of primary school literacy teaching and assessment. It would seem that liaison between the two sectors is crucial in order to foster professional understanding and more effective literacy teaching and assessment.

The study also highlighted teachers' perceptions of the interrelated nature of teaching and assessment. In particular, teachers were concerned about the challenges for literacy teaching presented by expanding views of literacy and the corresponding increase in the range of methods of assessment available to teachers. These challenges are faced by primary teachers too, and may prove an impetus for joint workshops in which both groups of teachers share ideas and gain knowledge of each others' practices.

The teachers in this study revealed a diversity of perceptions about literacy assessment and students' expectations and problems. This is perhaps to be expected in a system where teachers feel that they have the freedom and flexibility to assess a range of genres using a variety of techniques. In practice it may mean that while literacy assessment programs in secondary schools follow the broad principles for assessment described in the syllabus, the details of methods, tasks and criteria will vary. The implications for teachers working in the final year of primary school are that their assessment programs need to focus on developing students' understanding of broad principles of criteria-based assessment outlined in the syllabus rather than on developing methods of assessment which they perceive are similar to those in secondary school. To ensure coherence and consistency in assessment, teachers working with students in their first year of high school also have a responsibility to maintain and develop students' understandings of these same principles within their own varied assessment programs.

Further, students need to be actively involved in the assessment process at all levels so that they can develop strategies to cope with the diversity of approaches in assessment which are becoming a feature both in primary and secondary school. For example, learning strategies such as how to use task sheets and tackle assessment tasks may assist them in understanding how to plan their work and organise their study time.

Conclusion

Our aim in this study was to highlight some of the issues for teachers in adopting criteria-based assessment. The findings show that while teachers in general were very positive about this form of assessment, there are serious issues which may impact on the effectiveness of this approach. First, this form of assessment was perceived by teachers to be very time consuming. The teachers in this study felt that the frequency of assessment, and the time taken to develop and implement criteria-based tasks, impinged on their teaching to the detriment of their students. In particular, they were concerned that they were unable to spend adequate time following-up and supporting struggling students. This finding points to one of the inherent tensions in this form of classroom-based assessment -- the creation of a balance between collecting useful information which helps teachers focus on improving students' learning, and the constraint imposed by the demands of the program to move on to the next task. This point has implications for those developing criteria-based assessment programs. Careful thought should be given to the frequency and timing of tasks to allow for adequate follow-up.

Second, a major argument for the adoption of classroom-based assessment practices is that the locus of control for assessment lies with the classroom teacher, and the teacher's role as evaluator is respected and encouraged (Valencia, Hiebert & Afflerbach, 1994; Wiggins, 1993). Criteria-based assessment in Queensland is classroom-based and reliant on teacher judgment, yet teachers in this study still felt constrained by external forces such as school requirements for assessment, and having to undertake tasks which did not match their own beliefs. Wherever a form of assessment is part of a formal, large-scale assessment system, as criteria-based assessment is used in Queensland, there is the capacity to suppress the values and judgments of the individual teacher for the sake of accreditation and accountability at the system's level. It would therefore be naive to view criteria-based assessment per se as a means of empowering teachers in their professional roles as evaluators.

Third, these teachers perceived that, for students, developing an understanding of criteria-based assessment was a long-term and complex process. Teachers perceived that the complexity of the assessment process, the problems students faced in mastering procedures for completing tasks, and poor understanding of criteria, caused difficulties during the first year of secondary school. Devising effective ways of introducing criteria-based assessment to students, and strategies for involving students meaningfully in the assessment process, may lead to more successful implementation of this form of assessment.

Findings from this survey suggested that assessment in Year 8 classrooms has the potential to exacerbate or ameliorate problems caused by the transition from primary to secondary school. Specifically, teachers commented on issues arising from the complexities involved in learning new procedures and routines, differences between primary and secondary school, and students' personal expectations, all of which have been identified in the literature as important areas of concern for students as they move from primary to secondary school (Hargreaves & Earl, 1990).

Previous research has shown that changes in assessment practices, and indicators of performance such as grades, ratings and marks, affect how well students settle into secondary school (Crockett, Petersen, Graber, Schulenberg & Ebata, 1989; Felner, Primavera & Cauce, 1981; Harter, Whitesell & Kowalski, 1992). Findings from this study suggest that the increasing complexity of the assessment process itself, and the problems students face in mastering procedures and understanding concepts such as criterion-referenced assessment, may also be implicated in difficulties during the first year of secondary school.

In this article we have argued that where Year 7 and Year 8 teachers explicitly teach principles of assessment derived from the syllabus to their students, involve students in the assessment process, share their assessment practices, and liaise closely with each other, clarity and consistency of literacy assessment programs in primary and secondary schools is enhanced. We believe that achieving these goals is crucial to ensuring that literacy assessment in secondary school is a positive experience for incoming students.

Note: An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, December 1997.

(1) Tables of the categories and the frequencies of responses can be obtained from the first author.

REFERENCES

Anderman, E. & Maehr, M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 2, pp. 287-309.

Blyth, D., Simmons, R. & Carlton-Ford, S. (1983). The adjustment of early adolescents to school transitions. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 1-2, pp. 105-120.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Cairney, T., Lowe, K. & Sproats, E. (1994). Literacy in Transition: An evaluation of the literacy practices in upper primary and junior secondary schools. Kingswood, NSW: The University of Western Sydney, Nepean.

Crockett, L., Petersen, A., Graber, J., Schulenberg, J. & Ebata, A. (1989). School transitions and adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 3, pp. 181-210.

Department of Education, Queensland. (1994). English Syllabus for Years 1 to 10. Brisbane: Author.

Eltis, K., Low, B., Adams, M. & Cooney, G. (1987). Transition to High School Study. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Felner, R., Primavera, J. & Cauce, A. (1981). The impact of school transitions: A focus for preventive efforts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6, pp. 449-59.

Green, B., Hodgen, J. & Luke, A. (1997). Debating literacy in Australia: History lessons and popular f(r)ictions. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20, 1, pp. 6-26.

Hargreaves, A. & Earl, L. (1990). Rights of Passage: Selected research about schooling in the transition years. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Education.

Harter, S., Whitesell, N. & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young adolescents' perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 4, pp. 777-807.

McMeniman, M. (1986). A Standards Schema (Discussion Paper 3). Brisbane, Qld: Board of Secondary School Studies.

Maxwell, G. (1995). School-based assessment in Queensland. In C. Collins (ed.), Curriculum Stocktake: Evaluating school curriculum change. Deakin, ACT: Australian College of Education.

Moni, K., Tonkin, L. & van Kraayenoord, C. (1996). Whole School Approaches to Assessment and Reporting, Volume 2: Practices in project schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.

Power, C. & Cotterell, J. (1981). Changes in Students in the Transition from Primary to Secondary School. Canberra: The Commonwealth of Australia.

Sadler, R. (1986). Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Teachers' Qualitative Judgements (Discussion Paper 5). Brisbane, Qld: Board of Secondary School Studies.

Stewart-Dore, N. (1996). Confronting a cause celebre: How might we raise literacy teaching's profile? Literacy Learning: Secondary Thoughts, 4, 1, pp. 8-24.

van Kraayenoord, C. & Moni, K. (1997). Students' voices: Literacy assessment in secondary schools. Literacy Learning: Secondary Thoughts, 5, 2, pp. 28-40.

Valencia, S., Hiebert, E. & Afflerbach, P. (1994). Realizing the possibilities of authentic assessment: Current trends and future issues. In S. Valencia, A.

Hiebert & P. Afflerbach (eds), Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. pp. 286-301.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Karen Moni is a former English teacher working as a part-time lecturer and research assistant at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Queensland. Her research interests include literacy assessment, and literacy development in adolescents.

Address: Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072.

Email: k.moni@mailbox.uq.edu.au

Christina van Kraayenoord is a Senior Lecturer at the Schonell Special Education Research Centre at the University of Queensland, where she teaches in the area of literacy learning and learning difficulties. Her research interests focus on literacy development and education, learning difficulties, metacognition and self-concept.

Address: Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072.

Email: c.vanKraayenoord@mailbox.uq.oz.au

Carolyn Baker is an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Queensland. Her research focusses on language use and literacy practices in classrooms and other institutional settings, conversational and text analysis, ethnomethodology in education, and qualitative methodologies.

Address: Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072.

Email: c.baker@mailbox.uq.oz.au