Advertisement

Teachers’ Professional Judgment in the Context of Collaborative Assessment Practice

  • Linda Allal
  • Lucie Mottier Lopez
Chapter
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter examines teachers’ professional judgment in the context of collaborative practices of summative assessment. It adopts theoretical perspectives drawn from research on teacher collaboration and from work on situated cognition in classrooms and in professional communities of practice. A framework is proposed for analyzing four facets of teacher collaboration in summative assessment: the dynamics, scale, object(s) and aim(s) of collaboration. This framework is used to present findings from research on teachers’ assessment practices: a study conducted with Grade 6 teachers in Geneva, Switzerland, and a study involving secondary teachers (Year 8) in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. Findings are compared and implications are presented for actions that could promote teacher collaboration in summative assessment, through professional development, collaborative research and social moderation activities. Directions for future research are briefly considered.

Keywords

Student Learning Joint Work Assessment Practice Student Work Professional Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allal, L. (2012). ‘Teachers’ professional judgement in assessment: A cognitive act and a socially situated practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. doi:10.1080/096959X.2012.736364.Google Scholar
  2. Allal, L., & Mottier Lopez, L. (2008). Mieux comprendre le jugement professionnel en évaluation: Apports et implications de l’étude genevoise. In L. Lafortune & L. Allal (Eds.), Jugement Professionnel en Evaluation: Pratiques enseignantes au Québec et à Genève (pp. 223–239). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  3. Allal, L., & Mottier Lopez, L. (2009). Au coeur du jugement professionnel en évaluation: Des démarches de triangulation. Les Dossiers des Sciences de l’Education, 22, 25–54.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning?. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., McClain, K., de Silva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coles, C. (2002). Developing professional judgment. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning—tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kain, D. L. (1996). Looking beneath the surface: Teacher collaboration through the lens of grading practices. Teachers College Record, 97, 569–587.Google Scholar
  11. Klenowski, V., & Adie, L. (2009). Moderation as judgement practice: Reconciling system level accountability and local level practice. Curriculum Perspectives, 29, 10–28.Google Scholar
  12. Lafortune, L., & Allal, L. (Eds.). (2008). Jugement Professionnel en Evaluation: Pratiques enseignantes au Québec et à Genève. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  13. Laveault, D. (2008). Le jugement professionnel: Foyer de tensions et de synergies nouvelles en évaluation scolaire. Revue Suisse des Sciences de l’Education, 30, 483–500.Google Scholar
  14. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509–536.Google Scholar
  15. Little, J. W. (2004). “Looking at student work” in the United States: A case of competing impulses in professional development. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 94–118). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. MELS (Ministère de l’éducation, du loisir et du sport, Gouvernement du Québec, Canada). (2003). Politique d’évaluation des apprentissages. <www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/lancement/PEA/13-4602.pdf>. Accessed 10 February 2012.
  17. Ministry of Education, Ontario, Canada. (2007). Teacher moderation: Collaborative assessment of student work. Literacy and numeracy secretariat, capacity building series. <www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/>. Accessed 3 March 2012.
  18. Mottier Lopez, L., & Allal, L. (2008). Le jugement professionnel en évaluation: Un acte cognitif et une pratique sociale située. Revue Suisse des Sciences de l’Education, 30, 465–482.Google Scholar
  19. Mottier Lopez, L., Tessaro, W., Dechamboux, L., & Morales, F. (2012). Assessment judgment in action: A study of teachers’ practices of summative assessment in primary school. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Cádiz, Spain.Google Scholar
  20. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgement practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations