Levels 5 and 6 Evaluation
Impact assessment is basically: compare measurements BEFORE and AFTER. It is particularly tricky in education because you don’t want to only concentrate on things that are easily measured. Often you need to think much more creatively about how to achieve a reasonably accurate method for measurement.
For most of the core aims (SECRET) the only measurement available to you will be qualative. For level 5 evaluation this is fine.
The simplest method is the questionnaire. Restrict yourself to one side of A4 equivalent (or online) that you can ask before and after.
Another simple method may be a bit counter intuitve but… set the end of topic test BEFORE you start the topic so you are certain at the end of the topic how much impact your teaching had. It also allows you to know which parts of the topic need more of your attention and which parts can be eplained by students when you get to them.
Impact assessment based on evidence (level 6)
This requires your school to have reliable methods in place for evidencing progression in core aims. Unfortunately the vast majority of schools don’t have a mechanism in place for measuring core aims. For example the most common core aim is ‘The ability to collaborate’. The collaborative ability of children is definitely measurable but generally is not measured in schools.
To introduce a system of measuring core aims yourself is often too much of a demand for an individula or even for a PLC so unfortunately, unless your school implements a method for tracking essential core aims, evaluation at level 6 and above is extremely difficult.
PbyP is an effective way of providing a measurement for all core aims. It is effective but requires commitment, effort and realistically 18 months to get it established. Here is a description of how it works.
For further details visit the site at www.pbyp.co.uk
Peer assessment online for learners
- Using common generic frameworks of ladders and skills, learners are instantly connected to those working at similar levels on similar goals all over the world
- Examples of successful work at each level can be viewed to help inspire
- Evidence of progression can be sent by the learner to others who have already achieved this level of excellence so that they can act as ‘expert’ peer assessors.
- Teachers can moderate 10% of the work for feedback within the system. Accurate assessors are praised and their judgement can hold greater weighting.
- If every learner is also an assessor the system is entirely scalable
- Work can always be assessed by someone in a different school to the learner, thus enabling international bench marking
- The self direction of learners means their progression routes are personalised and may be different from those around them but the international connection between schools means that they are always supported
- By providing structured mentoring the 1:1 ratio of peer mentoring and reflection on learning can be achieved.
PbyP Tool #11 – Structured Peer assessment
In the PbyP online tool,
- learners read the ladder statement,
- view examples from other learners and then
- decide how to construct their own evidence. This can be video, documents, audio recordings or any other way in which they choose to evidence it.
- They upload their evidence into the website
- The evidence is automatically sent to someone not in their own institution who has achieved this ladder level already; an ‘expert’
- The ‘expert’ must say what they like best about the evidence and how it could be improved.
- On receiving the work back, the learner provides feedback on how helpful and positive their ‘expert’ was so that each person has an assessor rating.
- If the expert says the work passed then the ladder level colours in and the learner can progress to the next level up.
Learner driven impact assessment for teacher action research
- If teachers are attempting to drive up progression, a separate international benchmarked measure of progress can provide authenticity to action research
- The analysis of the impact happens within a common framework so that like can be compared to like. This allows comparative measures of the impact of teacher projects and school based project.