<Tutor>
<Department>
Introduction
AFL or assessment for learning is a critical tool for teachers in gauging the level of student’s knowledge in particular area of learning. It also determines the key areas that the student’s needs to improve on and at the same time assist the teacher in creating learning strategies that would address the perceived weaknesses. AFL is being undertaken in all areas of learning including mathematics and MFL (modern foreign language). However, AFL practices was had not introduced a gold standard that can be put in practice for all learning areas as there are varying similarities and differences on how each assessment is being carried in MFL and math. The discussion will determine these similarities and differences through a textual analysis of practice guides for math and MFL.
Similarities and Differences in AFL Practice between Math and MFL Curriculum
Drawing out the differences and similarities in AFL practice between math and AFL encompasses an emphasis to the contrasting view of summative and formative assessment. Several publications articulate what constitutes an effective assessment practice including Jones & William (2008) and Hodgen & William (2006). The various tasks that are considered diverse and challenging should focus primarily on the curriculum’s learning objectives. The activities should also demonstrate excellent quality of information in order to assist the students in their learning progress. According to Hodgen and William (2006), the key characteristics of the tasks in math lessons include having the obvious incorrect answer or the questions encompasses more than one solution stating that, “students generally expect mathematical problems to one correct answer yet real mathematical problems may have many solutions or none” (p. 8). Engaging into math activities as part of the assessment practice highlights the complex structure of mathematical reasoning in which the similarities and differences in the pupil’s understanding of the subject can be drawn. The same cannot be assumed for AFL practice in MFL as language learning encompasses familiarization with language associated terms while the prerequisite to math learning is understanding of numerical logic.
In terms of comparison both Jones & William (2008) and Hodgen & William (2006) emphasized the importance of tests as a widely used practice of summative assessment in both math and MFL. On the other hand, the same method can be also used formatively as the evidence from the literature suggests that frequent short testing can be an effective tool to improve the student’s performance. The use of summative test in AFL involves a discussion scheme where the pupils would be able to have a greater understanding of the grading criteria used in the test. The discussion of the test criteria between the teacher and the student encompasses clear expectations on areas where the pupils should perform better. In addition, understanding the criteria of the summative test will enable the students to create a plan to revise the work. Within the AFL practice of discussion, questioning can be an important step for factual recall.
Jones and William (2008) suggest that while giving rapid-fire questions increases the speed of a discussion, it will rather hamper the process of deep understanding and learning. The learning process involved in MFL was constructed towards retention and recall, repetitions of the lesson encourages maximum retention of the complex terms of the language being learned. Therefore, recalling facts in a discussion session during AFL using rapid-fire questioning will only distort the facts rather than achieving a deeper understanding on the part of the pupils. As indicated in both literatures, the AFL practice involving a discussion between the student and a teacher through asking questions recommends putting a “wait times” between questions to allow the pupil to think through and recall the right answer.
Hodgen and Williams (2006) recommends the same AFL practice in math assessment considering that the subject requires adequate time to decipher difficult math problems and a wait time will enable the student to recall the possible solutions to the given math problem. In addition, the authors similarly indicated that such practice should practice the no-hands policy, but rather choose students randomly. This was made clear by Jones and Williams (2006), stating that “the use of no hands up except to ask question increases the students engagement dramatically, and can be used for a wide range of questions” (p. 7). Another important AFL practice highlighted in both literatures is the use if feedbacks. In order for the assessment to be effective, the teacher should focus specifically on the mistakes and provide feedbacks to pupils regarding how to improve on those errors. On the other hand, feedbacks should be also combined with comments where the good points about the pupil’s work are being emphasized (Hodgen and Williams, 2006). In addition, feedbacks practices should also avoid making comparison with other student’s work, as it will only exacerbate the frustration emanating from the pupil. On the other hand, Jones and William (2008) suggest that feedbacks can be done more effectively when giving marks. For instance, instead of indicating the grade, the teacher can do a comment-only marking because when students are given comments alongside marks, they tend to get fixated on the numeral marks rather than the actual comments. It makes sense to believe that the reason pupils tend to make comments and comparison of their marks with other students is because they are drawn to the numerical marking and disregard the comments where indications of their improvement was being addressed.
Conclusion
References
Hodgen, J. and Wiliam, D. (2006). Mathematics inside the black box. London: GL Assessment.
Jones, J. and Wiliam, D. (2008). Modern foreign languages inside the black box. London: GL Assessment.
