Standard 5: Assess, Provide Feedback and Report on Student Learning

5.3 Make consistent and comparable judgements: Demonstrate understanding of assessment moderation and its application to support consistent and comparable judgements of student learning.

5.4 Interpret student data: Demonstrate the capacity to interpret student assessment data to evaluate student learning and modify teaching practice.

5.5 Report on student achievement: Demonstrate understanding of a range of strategies for reporting to students and parents/carers and the purpose of keeping accurate and reliable records of student achievement.

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2022, para. 5)

I undertook professional experience in a grade 2/3 classroom, consisting of 20 children with a range of diverse learning needs requiring specific adjustments in classroom activities. During this time, I implemented a data-driven instruction cycle to inform my planning and execution of a mathematics mini-unit focused on three-dimensional objects. This encompassed the accumulation and analysis of data to provide a holistic view of each child’s learning progress, including the formulation of a summative task to culminate the unit (APST 5.4) (Schildkamp, 2019). To consistently and reliably report pupil achievement, I developed the assessment rubric with guidance from the Australian Curriculum and grade learning goals, seen in Artefact 5.1 (APST 5.3; 5.5) (Autin & Davis, 2020). After the completion of the summative assessment, preparation for social moderation began, with the marking of two student assessment pieces, seen annotated in Artefacts 5.2 and 5.3 (APST 5.3). Students Q and B were selected for moderation due to their differing levels of achievement across the criteria (APST 5.4).

_{Artefact 5.1: The developed summative assessment rubric in alignment with the Australian Curriculum (Verrall, 2023).}

_{Artefact 5.2: Student Q’s annotated summative assessment work sample (Verrall, 2023).}

_{Artefact 5.3: Student B’s annotated summative assessment work sample (Verrall, 2023).}

Moderation, a critical stage of the teaching and learning cycle, allows colleagues to contribute their interpretation of student work, ensuring a consistent and comparable standard of assessment is achieved (Smaill, 2020). As a pre-service teacher, I felt apprehensive in my ability to mark against the rubric, therefore I embraced moderation as a form of accountability to ensure that my professional judgement was reliable (APST 5.3) (Adams & Anderson, 2019). The developed moderation template, seen in Artefacts 5.4 and 5.5, was utilised to guide conversation with my mentor, compare our interpretation of the assessment data, and negotiate to finalise student Q and B’s overall grade (APST 5.4). Adie et al. (2012) explained that marking does not solely rely on the rubric, but requires teachers to make on-balance judgements. It was evident that my mentor portrays the ability to use such judgement to determine a student’s grade, therefore I found the moderation process extremely valuable. For instance, I believed student B, demonstrated a well-above standard ability to apply knowledge to unfamiliar contexts, however as my teacher identified, a learner who incorrectly quantifies the features of 3D objects, an essential geometric skill for a grade three pupil, could not receive a grade higher than a B (Adams & Anderson, 2019).

_{Artefact 5.4: Moderation template for Student Q (Verrall, 2023).}

_{Artefact 5.5: Moderation template for Student B (Verrall, 2023).}

After critical reflection of the moderation process, I revised my marking procedure for the remainder of the grade 2/3 class to apply an on-balance judgment, seen in Artefacts 5.6 and 5.7 (APST 5.3). I demonstrated my capacity to constantly interpret assessment data and provided targeted feedback for the purpose of keeping an accurate record of their achievement (APST 5.4; 5.5) (Schildkamp, 2019). Additionally, I utilised this data to benefit the continual development of my students, modifying my teaching sequence to action any next steps identified in the moderation templates, seen in Artefacts 5.4 and 5.5 (APST 5.4) (Adie et al., 2012). The moderation process provided an insightful learning experience that I endeavour to pursue and participate in, particularly in the first year of my profession, to continually improve my attainment of the APSTs, and development of high-quality assessments, purposeful feedback and evidence-based learning sequences (Smaill, 2020).

_{Artefact 5.6: The marked rubric for Student Q’s summative assessment (Verrall, 2023).}

_{Artefact 5.7: The marked rubric for Student B’s summative assessment (Verrall, 2023).}

References

Adams, P., & Anderson, J. (2019). Moderation and the primary school context. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 47(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017.1382547

Adie, L., Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). Towards an understanding of teacher judgement in the context of social moderation. 64(2), 223–240. http://doi.oeg/10.1080/00131911.2011.598919

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2022). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) (Rev. Ed.). https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf

Autin, N., & Davis, T. (2020). The cognitive trio: Backward design, formative assessment, and differentiated instruction. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 5(2), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44.n11.4

Schildkamp, K. (2019). Data-based decision making in education. Educational Research, 61(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1625716

Smaill, E. (2020). Using involvement in moderation to strengthen teachers’ assessment for learning capability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(5), 522–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1777087