Main Article Content
In this article, we use a theatre metaphor, reflected in a prologue, three acts, and an epilogue, to retell and reflect on our journey of inquiring about, designing, enacting, and studying our enactment of non-traditional assessment practices in higher education. We are striving to better align our assessment practices with our beliefs and values about teaching and learning. We discuss how reforming our assessment practices affected issues of equity for our pre-service teachers, such as their participation, identity, power, and agency in our classes. We hope to inspire readers to reflect on how their assessment practices affect students’ learning and sense of agency.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promotelearning. In Wilson, M. (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (pp. 20-50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C. Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. New York: Open University Press.
Boaler, J. (2009). What’s math got to do with it? New York: Penguin Group.
Bose, J., & Rengel, Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote student-centered self-regulated learning in higher education. Online Submission, ERIC, EBSCOhost
Butler, R. (1987) Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 210–216.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2013). Accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.caepsite.org/standards.html
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Jones, S. R. (2002). Becoming grounded in grounded theory methodology. In S. B. Merriam and Associates (Eds.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 175-177). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
McClam, S., & Sevier, B. (2010). Troubles with grades, grading, and change: Learning from adventures in alternative assessment practices in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1460-1470.
McDowell, L.,Wakelin, D.,Montgomery, C., & King, S. (2011). Does assessment for learning make a difference? The development of a questionnaire to explore the student response. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 749-765.
National Council of Teachers of English (2013). Position statement: Formative assessment that truly informs instruction. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/formative-assessment
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2013). Position Statement on Formative Assessment. Retrieved from www.nctm.org/formative
Nicol, J. D. & Macfarlane‐ Dick, D., (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Pintrich, P. R. (1995) Understanding self-regulated learning. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002) Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In J. C. Smart & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research (vol. XVII). New York: Agathon Press.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wiggins, G. (2012). 7 keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 11-16.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Research Brief: Five key strategies for effective formative assessment. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2004) Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A social cognitive perspective. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.