Skip to 0 minutes and 37 seconds NARRATOR: During the video, we will want you to think about the most effective ways to assess learning. Not only in the physical, but also in the cognitive, social, and affective learning domains. [AIRPLANE BUZZES]
Skip to 0 minutes and 53 seconds DEAN DUDLEY: Good day. My name is Dean Dudley from Macquarie University here in Sydney, Australia. In this video, we want you to learn about a new metacognitive tool we’ve developed to help you evaluate student learning and diagnose the learning needs of your students. By the end of this session, you will leave with an understanding of how you can work towards developing your own assessment tools appropriate for the students in your school and your teaching context.
Skip to 1 minute and 18 seconds The 2015 UNESCO guidelines for Quality Physical Education stress that we need to work harder to improve both the short and long-term health development outcomes of our students. Our students need exposure to multiple and alternative learning domains during physical education classes. So this means as physical educators, we need to focus not only on the physical domain of learning, but we also need to ensure that both the cognitive, social, and affective learning domains are being catered for in our lessons. The problem to date has been there have been two dominant mechanisms that we continue to use to assess learning in quality physical education. And unfortunately, neither is fit for purpose. The first is to invite the public health sector.
Skip to 2 minutes and 0 seconds It seeks to assist learning based on norm referenced health standards. You may have come across a few of these– fitness scores, quantifying moderate to vigorous physical activity, and so forth. Norm referencing in educational settings is inappropriate for three reasons. First, it gives us no indication of quality. Second, we seek as physical educators, we constantly seek to improve learning in our students, not merely stabilize it or compare it to others. And three, we work hard to reduce the gap between our high and low-performing students, not to normalize it. On the other side of the coin, we have educational assessment, which has now been driven largely by standards-based assessment protocols.
Skip to 2 minutes and 43 seconds However, these models are often nebulous in their descriptors and lack validity and reliability to defend logical progressions of student learning. They also have failed to accommodate the students that exceed the described standards. Both of these predominant models of assessments do not focus on the needs of the individual student. There are differing stages of competence and progression in the student’s individual learning growth. Nor do they focus on significant attention across multiple learning domains, let alone do it simultaneously.
Skip to 3 minutes and 17 seconds However, I’m here to pose a question. What if the two models could be harmoniously combined in some way where we could measure what was happening in our class, but also speak very consciously to the standards, and across multiple learning domains? It is clear then that we need the assessment frameworks that can focus on growth over time and are evolutionary in their capacity to capture student learning. Student growth refers to how much a student’s learning has grown in any given period. And according to Hattie and Yates in their 2013 [? takes, ?] every student is entitled to receive at least one year of learning growth in return for one year of schooling input.
Skip to 3 minutes and 55 seconds In collaboration with some of my partners here in Sydney at the Univeristy of Birmingham, we have developed a framework that is based on observable learning, or what I call in my 2015 paper on physical literacy, the legitimate manifestations of student learning. This is based on the SOLO taxonomy, or the structure of observed learning outcomes, and is focused on measuring quality and quantity of learning. You can think of SOLO a bit like building a house. The framework is based on assessing learning as it progresses through movement across five stages. There’s the prestructural, the unistructural, the multistructural, relational and extended abstract [INAUDIBLE].
Skip to 4 minutes and 33 seconds Prestructural learning is the acquisition of unconnected information which bears no real organizational sense to the context in which you’re trying to teach. Unistructural is where a student is able to grasp simple and obvious connections made between the learning context and their outcome, but the significance is grasped. Multistructural is when a student can source multiple sources of information, but they cannot join the dots between those. And they miss the significance as a whole. Relational is when they start to join those dots. The student can now appreciate the significance of the parts in relation to the whole.
Skip to 5 minutes and 10 seconds Finally, extend abstract is where the student is making connections– not only within the given area of the subject you’re teaching and the learning context, but beyond it. They are now able to generalize their knowledge and transfer the principles of learning, or the contexts which they have learned to other scenarios. The easiest way is to think of it like I mentioned earlier– is like building a house. A prestructural, I don’t know what to do. Unistructural, they can talk about one brick. Multistructural, they can talk about a pile of bricks, but they’re not connected in any way. And at the relational level, they can do something with the bricks.
Skip to 5 minutes and 45 seconds They can talk about the bricks themselves, but also the mortar that joined them together. And extended abstract student might ask, why are you building this house out of bricks? There’s a good analogy for you.
Skip to 5 minutes and 58 seconds So I’ve applied this to physical education and developed a framework of five stages based on the physical, the cognitive, the social, and the affective learning domains. The progression thresholds and the framework can be used to diagnose learning and also evaluate the learning of students after an intervention. Importantly, the framework focuses on growth of the individual students and across the different learning domains. An example of framework is provided as a resource for you to view after this video. And we have provided you with different tasks for you to understand and apply the framework to your students and your learning context.
Outstanding teachers can evaluate the impact of their practice by considering each individual learner’s progression rates in relation to a broad range of learning outcomes.
In this video Dr Dean Dudley from Macquarie University, Australia will introduce a new framework to help you evaluate your students’ learning and, also, diagnose the learning needs of your students.
This framework caters for learning progression and growth and will help you to devise assessment tools that cater for learning in physical, cognitive, social and affective domains.
© University of Birmingham