Exploring Alternative Assessment Techniques in Language Classrooms 1685070345, 9781685070342

Table of contents :
Contents
Introduction
Part A: Theoretical Background
Chapter 1
Research Rationale
1.1. Student Evaluation
1.2. Authentic Evaluation
1.2.1. Criticism of Authentic Evaluation
1.2.2. Authentic Evaluation Techniques
1.2.2.1. Descriptive Analysis
1.2.2.2. Peer Assessment
1.2.2.3 Self-Assessment
Chapter 2
Critical Review of the Teachinig Methodology and the Evaluation of the Greek Language in High Schools
Chapter 3
Critical Pedagogy
3.1. Action Research
3.1.1. The Components of Action Research
3.1.2. Implementation of Action Research: Required Preconditions
3.1.3. Emancipatory Action Research
3.1.4 Benefits of Action Research
3.1.5. Limitations of Action Research for the Practitioner in the Greek Educational System
Part B: The Research
Chapter 4
Research Design and Process
4.1. Aim and Scope of the Research
4.2. The Research Questions
4.3. Research Methodology
4.4. Design and Procedure of the Research
4.4.1. The Planning of the Research Course
4.5. The Participants
4.5.1. The Students
4.5.2. The Researchers
4.5.3. The Facilitator
4.5.4. The Critical Friend
4.5.5. Those Involved in the Research
Chapter 5
Conducting the Research
5.1. The Impetus
5.2. Conducting the Research
5.2.1. Cycle A
5.2.2. Cycle B
5.2.3. Cycle C
5.2.4. Action Assessment
Chapter 6
Findings and Suggestions
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix 1. Descriptive Evaluation Rubric
Appendix 2. Peer Evaluation Rubric for Oral Presentations
Appendix 3. Criteria for Peer Evaluation of Essays
References
Internet Sources
About the Authors
Index
Index
Index
Index
Blank Page
Blank Page

Citation preview

Languages and Linguistics

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Languages and Linguistics

International Current Trends in Applied Linguistics and Pedagogy Isaak Papadopoulos, Sorina Chiper, PhD (Editor) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-758-7 (Hardcover) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-879-9 (eBook) Sociolinguistics: Past, Present and Future Perspectives Marcus K. Jakobsen (Editor) 2022. ISBN: 979-8-88697-018-0 (Softcover) 2022. ISBN: 979-8-88697-026-5 (eBook) Loaded Language and the Dilemma of Journalism Alexandra Kitty (Editor) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-707-5 (Hardcover) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-792-1 (eBook) The Emergence of Grammars. A Closer Look at Dialects between Phonology and Morphosyntax Michela Russo (Editor) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-53619-888-1 (Hardcover) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-022-9 (eBook) Emergent Literacy Spectrum of Bilingual Children in India Prema K. S. Rao, PhD (Editor) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-925-4 (Softcover) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53618-948-3 (eBook)

More information about this series can be found at https://novapublishers.com/product-category/series/languages-and-linguistics/

Konstantina Iliopoulou, Alexandra Anastasiadou, Georgia Karountzou and Vasilios Zorbas Editors

Exploring Alternative Assessment Techniques in Language Classrooms

Copyright © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52305/HIXG3653 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470

E-mail: [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Iliopoulou, Konstantina, author | Anastasiadou, Alexandra, author | Karountzou, Georgia, author | Zorbas, Vasilios, author. Title: Exploring alternative assessment techniques in language classrooms / Konstantina Iliopoulou, [and 3 others]. Description: New York : Nova Science Publishers, [2022] | Series: Languages and linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2022024285 (print) | LCCN 2022024286 (ebook) | ISBN 9781685070342 (paperback) | ISBN 9798886970036 (adobe pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Greek language, Modern--Study and teaching--Greece. | Greek language, Modern--Ability testing--Greece. | Students--Rating of--Greece. | Students--Greece--Attitudes. Classification: LCC PA1047.G8 I45 2022 (print) | LCC PA1047.G8 (ebook) | DDC 489/.380071--dc23/eng/20220610 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022024285 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022024286

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Contents

Introduction

.......................................................................................... vii

Part A

Theoretical Background....................................................1

Chapter 1

Research Rationale ............................................................3 1.1. Student Evaluation........................................................3 1.2. Authentic Evaluation ....................................................4

Chapter 2

Critical Review of the Teachinig Methodology and the Evaluation of the Greek Language in High Schools ................................................................15

Chapter 3

Critical Pedagogy.............................................................21 3.1. Action Research..........................................................22

Part B

The Research....................................................................31

Chapter 4

Research Design and Process..........................................33 4.1. Aim and Scope of the Research ..................................33 4.2. The Research Questions .............................................33 4.3. Research Methodology ...............................................34 4.4. Design and Procedure of the Research .......................40 4.5. The Participants ..........................................................41

Chapter 5

Conducting the Research ................................................45 5.1. The Impetus ................................................................45 5.2. Conducting the Research ............................................47

Chapter 6

Findings and Suggestions ................................................87

Conclusion

...........................................................................................95

vi

Contents

Appendices

.........................................................................................105 Appendix 1. Descriptive Evaluation Rubric ....................106 Appendix 2. Peer Evaluation Rubric for Oral Presentations ......................................................109 Appendix 3. Criteria for Peer Evaluation of Essays ........110

References

.........................................................................................111 Internet Sources ...............................................................122

About the Authors ....................................................................................125 Index

.........................................................................................127

Introduction

Student evaluation is one of the most important processes and practices in the learning practice of schools, which constitutes a vital part of education. It is considered one of the most important issues which involve the teachers, the students and all the stakeholders who participate in the process of school performance. In this line, it requires the continuous attention and concern of all the engaged stakeholders, since it is a fundamental parameter of the learning process. It should be noted that, in a wider context, the purpose of evaluation should not only focus on or be constricted to the improvement of school performance, but it should mainly contribute to helping students become active citizens and capable of building a better world. Moreover, the ideal school does not merely seek efficient or productive outcomes but also targets the democratic organization and function of sociopolitical structures. Its main pedagogical goal is to shape critical citizens who can question, reflect and cooperate in order to manage to develop an active stance towards the sociopolitical reality (Tsiami, 2013). More specifically, in the Greek educational setting, the notion of evaluation alludes to exams, grades, degrees which revolve around student performance. It entails social connotations and shapes the mentality of teachers, learners and parents. Consequently, its main ethical parameter, which is the aim of evaluation, the individual differences of students along with the pedagogical and scientific validity of its practices is far from prioritized. The evaluation of Modern Greek is imperative within this context. This subject aims to enrich the students’ linguistic repertoire on the one hand and promote their knowledge of the structure and function of the language on the other. It should be noted that it is not only considered a subject per se but also as a means of organizing all other school subjects and improving students’ linguistic skills in general. Therefore, it constitutes the dominant

viii

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

teaching tool in an educational setting (Koutsogiannis, 2010) as well as the main communication method of society. In this sense, language is the basic foundation of most subjects which cannot be taught without the linguistic contribution (Haralampopoulos, 1988; Hontolidou, 1988; Oikonomou, 1996). Therefore, having put forward the significance of language, the educational system promoted its systematic teaching, prioritizing this way the teaching of language among all the school subjects (Bouzakis, 1995; Brown, 2004; Mantaki, 1999; Vougioukas, 1994). It could be concluded, then, that the evaluation of students’ performance in the Modern Greek language constitutes a very delicate issue concerning the assessment of this specific subject, due to the fact that it could evoke the teachers’ subjective judgement while at the same time, each student’s unique way of thinking is monitored. Therefore, it is more than evident that the learners’ constant effort to extract meaning from written speech and, at the same time, develop appropriate skills concerning the production of written and oral language should be encouraged in order to foster the students’ communicative and academic potential. Evaluation has to take into account the fact that education is student-centered, as each learner is unique with individual abilities and needs. To this end, evaluation cannot be restricted to the correction of errors but should provide constructive guidance in order to enable students to identify their mistakes and needs and try to correct them. The present research aims to empower students to question the quality of their evaluation in the Greek language both in school and in society, so that they will manage to demand equality in evaluation, develop critical thinking and take initiatives to defend not only themselves but also all the people who are oppressed, by seeking to create a fairer society which prioritizes meritocracy1. Specifically, it will delve into the following dimensions:

1

The Greek educational system is mainly divided into three levels: primary, secondary and tertiary, with an additional post-secondary level providing vocational training. Primary education is divided into kindergarten lasting one or two years, and primary school spanning six years (ages 6 to 12). Secondary education comprises two stages: Gymnasio (loosely translated as Middle or Junior High School), a three-year school, after which students can attend Lykeion (an academically oriented high school) or Vocational training. Higher Tertiary education is provided by Universities and Polytechnics, Technological Educational Institutes and Academies. All levels are overseen by the Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs. The present study focuses on Gymnasium as it the last compulsory educational level. Therefore, its contribution to the development of students‘critical thinking skills and empathy in the classroom is essential.

Introduction

ix

1. Students’ expectations with respect to their evaluation in the Greek language, 2. The effectiveness of this evaluation in fostering their linguistic and social amelioration, 3. The implementation of appropriate practices which can ensure an assessment context whereby modern pedagogical practices are employed, leading to learner autonomy. The selected research methodology was defined by the aim of the research and the researchers’ goal to create the appropriate framework to positively shape the school culture following the different values that each school environment may adopt (Elliott, 1993: 196‐198; Zeichner, 2001). Taking into account the aim of the research (i.e., the creation of a school context in which the currently applied evaluation methods will be transformed in order to help learners capitalize on the results of assessment, assume responsibility for their own learning and become emancipated), the researchers sought a research methodology which: •

• •

differs from research methods which investigate social contexts from a distance yielding generalizable results (Carr & Kemmis, 2000: 257‐259) can assess and provide feedback to the research methodology used by the present researchers intends to maximize the quality of the findings by enhancing the current research.

In this respect, action research was singled out as the most appropriate methodology (Elliott, 2004: 284), in which the researchers reflect on their own practices in order to fully comprehend and do justice to them and verify the real context which they seek to explore. Moreover, given that an additional aim of the research was the empowerment of the students within the framework of their evaluation and the fact that its methodology will not be carried out through personal transformation (which simply alters fossilized structures of assessment) but will investigate and analyze the social parameters that affect the choice of evaluative practices implemented in a school, the researchers selected the type of action research which is called critical emancipatory (Carr & Kemmis, 2009;, Fook & Akseland, 2006). This involves a radical kind of action research which seeks to trace the interrelation of educational research and school reality as communicating vessels. Within this framework, cultural

x

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

bias towards evaluation will be replaced by pedagogical practices which represent the Critical Pedagogy of Peace (Danesh, 2006). The present research is grounded in the socio-critical pedagogy of peace which traces the basic tenets of critical-emancipatory action research: • •

•

The familiarization with reality which aims to improve the practices used so far Its democratic nature which requires the participation of all the stakeholders in decision making along with educational design and realization of the predetermined aims The empowerment and emancipation of all the participants (namely, the students, the teachers and the researchers) who reject long used practices which have been deemed outdated by the instructors and society.

This alternative methodology of educational research urged us to critically examine evaluative techniques concerning student performance which have long been employed by educational authorities (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988: 21‐28, 2000: 278) to implement changes in educational evaluation. The present study comprises the introduction, a theoretical part and a practical one, (i.e., the presentation of the research along with the presentation and the interpretation of the results). The two parts are intertwined in that the theoretical background leads to the practical section and as a result the actual research aspires to generate a new evaluation theory integrating the proposal of “appropriate practices.” In the first part, namely the theoretical section of the present study, the theoretical underpinnings (i.e., the “Critical Pedagogy of Peace”) including authentic evaluation are discussed. Literature review of relevant studies are presented in order to highlight the research gap in the specific field in the Greek educational context; corroborating, thus, the novelty of the current research. In the second part, the aim and scope of the research is presented, the research questions are articulated, the research methodology and process are introduced, and the research tools used to collect the data are analyzed. Then, the findings are presented and interpreted, and finally, a discussion of the accrued data is put forward. The researchers reflect on the study and propose recommendations for further research. Finally, bibliographical references are provided along with appendices whereby all the research tools are included.

Part A: Theoretical Background

Chapter 1

Research Rationale 1.1. Student Evaluation Student evaluation is a necessary component of the teaching process, tightly connected to the teaching and learning process as well as the social dimension of schools. It is an ongoing process which is embedded in the teaching practices, is multifaceted regarding its methods and is oriented to monitoring the learners’ skills and abilities and the identification of their cognitive evolution (Papakonstantinou, 2002: 121). A review of the international literature (especially in the postmodernism era) reveals that educational evaluation has been highly explored and it is the focus of policies, national decisions but it has also generated lots of controversy (Cumming et al., 1999: 177-193; Harland, 2005: 327-337; Huizen et al., 2005: 267-290). Various learning theories attest that learning originates from an interaction of a multiplicity of cognitive, emotional and socio-political factors (Resnick, 1989: 32-24). The context of the teaching practice determines its efficiency and defines its purpose (Anderson et al., 1996: 511; Wiggins, 1993: 45-47). Moreover, the most recent theories concerning evaluation have put forward the complexity of learning rejecting the notion of accurate measuring which has been the main concern of education so far (Gipps, 1994: 67-69; Goldstein, 1989: 24-28; Linn, 1990: 422-436; Popham, 2008). According to the Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993: 52-70) “the new attitudes towards evaluation constitute one of the most essential issues of the post-war era”. This shift in the purpose of evaluation has brought up two essential issues related to the assessment process: on the one hand, the notion of validity has surfaced signifying the appropriateness of the adopted evaluative methods which serve as indicators of the expected learning outcome as well as the suitability of the methods of interpreting the evaluation results and on the other hand, the need for the implementation of an evaluation method which the students are aware of and is carried out in a familiar context (Messick, 1995: 13-23).

4

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Therefore, performance assessment and authentic assessment are recurrent terms in the literature on education and educational research. They have both been given a number of different meanings and unclear definitions and are in some publications not defined at all. Such uncertainty of meaning causes difficulties in interpretation and communication and can cause clouded or misleading research conclusions (Torulf, 2008). Definitions of authentic assessment are often subject-independent, but not to the same extent as performance assessment.

1.2. Authentic Evaluation The need to overcome the shortcomings of traditional evaluation and align it to the recent findings of pedagogy has resulted in the introduction of a new term in education: authentic evaluation. Authentic evaluation is related to alternative evaluation in that every form of alternative evaluation can be regarded as authentic since they incorporate everyday activities (Paris & Ayres, 1994: 7). At the same time, new social dimensions such as the everchanging demand of new professions as well as the burgeoning of digital tools have paved the way for a radical re-evaluation of traditional practices concerning teaching and learning. The sweeping changes in the learning procedure have inevitably had a great impact on evaluative methods. The main aims of academic education urged students to specialise in one field only. Thus, as the acquisition of relevant knowledge was placed in the limelight, traditional teaching mainly adopted behavioral approaches (Chang, 2005). The traditional assessment methodology, which is in effect in many educational systems, encouraged students to memorize rules or algorithms rather than assimilate the new knowledge, concentrating on separate components of each subject which were assessed through traditional written exams, widely known as tests (Trilianos, 1998) including multiple-choice tests, true/false tests, short answers, and essays (Simonson et al., 2000). It should be noted that these tests can generate very little information about the students’ progress and are not adequate to evaluate demanding skills, like problem solving, critical thinking and reasoning. They cannot record the learners’ capacity to organize relevant information (Matsaggouras, 1999) and manage only to evaluate superficial knowledge, namely memorization of skills and procedures.

Research Rationale

5

On the contrary, authentic evaluation considers the criterion instead of the rule. This way, it traces strengths and weaknesses but fails to compare and classify students. Furthermore, it more than often relies on performance: students are required to exhibit their knowledge, skills and abilities in any way they themselves deem suitable. This method requires a predetermined plan intended to identify students’ straightforward behavior. In this line, Huot (2007: 30-31) supports that students’ proficiency lies in their ability to integrate and utilize knowledge and judgement within an authentic framework. Relevant information is collected using observation and recording, interviews, rating scales and samples of spontaneous or guided receptive and productive tasks of a specific school subject as well as monitoring students’ abilities and everyday interaction (Epstein et al., 2004: 8). Therefore, the term authentic evaluation implies the participation of learners’ in the assessment of their own development. As Coombe et al., (2012) explain, authentic assessment can be used to build a more effective panorama of learners’ development. This specific evaluation relies on performance, sensible expectations and appropriate guidance. It unearths the knowledge that the learners have really acquired rather a superficial reflection of the information they have mastered (Earl & Giles, 2011). Besides, the activities which are implemented in authentic evaluation reflect real life tasks. According to the proponents of evaluation, only then can assessment be real and essential and help students relate to the real world. Only then can the evaluative process reinforce this interaction (Shepard, 2005: 10). When evaluation is similar, predetermined, making no provision of learners’ personal differences, it may become unfair. This unjust treatment can be abolished if evaluation is individualized and flexible. It could be achieved when it can be modified in order to single out special capacities in different levels of proficiency and when it boosts the mutual interaction and discussion between the evaluator and the student. It has been proven (Snow, 2004) that mere monitoring of a single ability or acquired knowledge does not really mirror a student’s potential. In this respect, an evaluation method which can monitor a learner’s skills as a whole entity is required. Authentic evaluation gives prominence to this perspective. Overall, authentic evaluation aims at finding the best in learners (Coombe et al., 2012), approaches students and their abilities from a more humanistic perspective and fosters motivation and creativity (Nobre & Villas Boas, 2020). Moreover, constructivism requires the evaluation of both individual and group performance. Thus, it is evident that societal demands concerning

6

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

evaluation have changed and seek educational changes (Stone, 1998: 108) which will ensure a more efficient educational system. Consequently, alternative evaluation approaches have emerged which will in turn assess not only the learning process but the learning outcomes as well. It is evident, then, that the tendency of adopting the constructivist tenets along with the new assessment framework designed by the Ministry of Education set into motion the implementation of authentic educational evaluation in all levels serving the following aims (Guba & Lincoln, 2001): 1. The students are required to produce complete answers rather than select the correct answers from multiple choice test. 2. It boosts higher order thinking skills which far exceed basic skills. 3. It evaluates projects holistically. 4. It supplements traditional teaching methodologies. 5. It exploits samples of students’ work throughout the academic year. 6. It follows specific criteria which the learners are aware of, well in advance. 7. It encourages the participation of many evaluators. 8. It is directly connected to the learning process within the classroom. 9. It offers ample practice to students for self-evaluation. Authentic evaluation may also result in limiting gaps in knowledge in students from diverse backgrounds (Egan & Gardner, 1992: 397-407; Gordon & Bonilla-Bowman, 1996: 32-51; Montenegro & Jankowski, 2017). This gap difference can be overcome because learners work in an authentic framework, being provided with many linguistic interpretations and approaches, using materials with which they are all familiar and are willingly deciding to cooperate in order to solve problems (Gardner, 1993: 23-28). Notwithstanding that the underpinning assumptions of authentic evaluation focuses on the students’ progress in various contexts during the entire academic year, by no means is the instructor excluded from the evaluation process, as he/she is fully aware of the learners’ achievements but is also required to be able to adequately account for his/her choices (Iliopoulou, 2013). In the same line, Cochran-Smith (1991) attests that the way questions and problems are introduced in a classroom define and connect theory to practice through systematic observation of both learning and teaching. Teachers should develop the gift of wording and rearticulating questions through dialogue, leading, thus, to effective teaching. This means that the teachers can process answers in a way that triggers a discussion

Research Rationale

7

concerning the knowledge that the students have acquired so far and help them respond to questions which seemed difficult to answer initially; applying, thus, the Socratic method of elicitation. Besides, being an evaluator demands from a practitioner to receive and offer continuous feedback about the way that students learn how to learn taking also into account numerous other practical problems (such as the number of students in a class, inadequate infrastructure, non supportive administration) in order to be able to achieve their utmost potential in teaching and evaluating. The above mentioned issues denote that teaching depends on teachers’ willingness to work diligently yet they also unravel the challenge of creating evaluation systems that will relieve teachers of bearing the burden of educational evaluation to a great extent and will subsequently involve students and parents, if necessary, in this important and multidimensional process. Nevertheless, in a free educational context, the application of traditional testing methods cannot provide reliable student evaluation in a short period of time (Gay, 2011; Matsaggouras, 1999; Trilianos, 1998). Thus, it is imperative to use a larger scale evaluation which could identify learners’ skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, analytic thinking, ability of implementing prior knowledge to new contexts as well as improving reading, writing, listening and speaking (Rae & Cochrane, 2008; Vatterott, 2015). In the recent decades, rubrics have served as the most stable and popular authentic student evaluation techniques, since they are used to measure a wide spectrum of knowledge, skills and abilities in various school subjects and activities (Allen & Knight, 2009; Andrade & Valtcheva, 2008; Blommel & Abate, 2007; Buzetto-More & Alade, 2006; Hafner & Hafner, 2003; Lantz, 2004; Shepherd & Mullane, 2008 to mention but a few). These improvements correlate education with social and cultural aims, provide the opportunity for students to take control of their learning objectives and develop individuality, as well as provide direct criteria for foreign language competency. More particularly their usefulness is more than evident due to the fact that: • •

They empower teachers to evaluate students’ products such as activities or performance in relation to different quality levels. The aims and the expected outcomes can be presented by practitioners in a clear and easy to understand way.

8

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

•

•

• • •

• • •

As the learners know well in advance the criteria that will be used for their evaluation, they are forced to assume responsibility of their own learning and maximize their efforts and active participation in the learning process. Learners are assisted in determining their strengths and weaknesses in the learning process. The analytical description of the expected learning outcomes help them analyze the mark they received on a specific task and thus, ameliorate their future achievements. They constitute a valid and objective evaluation owing to the fact that the grading abides by an increasing tendency of difficulty. The audience they address can easily and effectively use them. Teachers are given the opportunity to accurately determine the students’ performance by applying preassigned criteria; thus, the teaching and learning procedure is improved. Learners develop self-reflection, self-determination and selfevaluation. They can be adjusted and used with heterogeneous student groups. All the educational stakeholders are informed through rubrics about the applied evaluation criteria, the learning goals and the degree to which the students have achieved them.

Rubrics are the most applied techniques of authentic evaluation. To recapitulate, if we attempted to ponder why authentic evaluation is recommended to be adopted and implemented in everyday school practice, we could state the attitude of lots of educators who claim that students should be given ample practice on how to think rather than memorize (Mac Beath, 2001: 157-166; Stiggins, 1997: 163- 164; Wiggins, 1993: 14;1998: 703-713).

1.2.1. Criticism of Authentic Evaluation A lot of experts on evaluation support the view that despite its numerous benefits, authentic evaluation does not constitute a panacea neither can it replace traditional written exams in all educational context. Messick (1995: 5-8) concluded that there is a lapse between the time devoted to implementing authentic evaluation and the need to assess the syllabus that has been taught within a predetermined time span, since

Research Rationale

9

authentic tests are more time consuming and fail to assess all the aspects of the learning process. In line with Messick (ibid), Green (1995: 54-57) argues that if the school principal seeks to compare the results of authentic evaluation in two successive school years, the first preoccupation should be to ensure the findings could be compared. Changes in the test structure may render the comparison of the data difficult, while repetition of the same practices could jeopardize the procedure. Regarding the layout and the design of the tests or the activities to be used during authentic evaluation, Flores (2009: 34) highlights the following problems that may arise: their design is time consuming, the material needed for authentic evaluation may be expensive and could be destroyed during the evaluation process, using cheaper material of lower quality may negatively affect the process, and, last but not least, interrater reliability may be also prove problematic. The difficulty of materializing authentic evaluation is not always resolved through constant training of the evaluators in applying specific, clear criteria. Moreover, various experts claim that the students do not think highly of these procedures, as they consider that lack of responsibility decreases the whole process, but Tsaggarakis (1984:47-57) revealed that if the learners are given ample training, then they tend to be more strict in rating both themselves and their fellow students. Tsinas (2006: 234) concluded that even though teachers declare that they use the aforementioned techniques, they mainly assess students at the end of the term when they have already decided on the evaluation of each student.

1.2.2. Authentic Evaluation Techniques In the recent decades, within the framework of social learning, active student participation in the classroom and holistic evaluation have emerged, originating from the authentic evaluation paradigm, such as self-evaluation, peer assessment, the use of the student’s individual compilation of work (portfolio), continuous observation, sociometric techniques, working in groups and homework. These techniques, which differ from the existing ones so far (written and oral exams, standardized or non-standardised tests, to mention but a few), aspire to evaluate the students’ real proficiency qualitatively and objectively. The focal points of this approach are comprised of the multiplicity of criteria, the combination of techniques, the variety of the means and the material of student evaluation along with the fact that

10

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

these procedures last long, evolve and display continuity (Andreadakis, et al., 2005: 45; Dimitropoulos, 2003: 93). The techniques that were utilized in the current research will be presented in the following sub-section.

1.2.2.1. Descriptive Analysis Descriptive evaluation is qualitative and multipotential methodology which seeks verbal and analytical assessment rather than numerical (Harisis, 2006: 286). More particularly, various versions of descriptive evaluation aspires to record the learners’ needs as well as to determine and design remedial work implementing pedagogical and didactic practices which are deemed appropriate in each context. It involves not only the cognitive field but it systematically encompasses the students’ effort, each learner’s individual progress, and the social skills that the students develop in their emotional domain through cooperation. “The aim of descriptive evaluation is the analytical classification of the totality of the students’ efforts, participation in the learning process, personal progress and lots of other dimensions which define a holistic evaluation of learner” (Pedagogical Institute, 2003: 29). It is a flexible methodology which can be calibrated to the needs and special features of all students, the objectives and the annual planning of each school. Rather than utilizing numerical grades, it exploits simple, understandable descriptions. Moreover, it does not only describe students’ drawbacks but it recommends remedial action for the improvement of the learners’ shortcomings, reinforcing their positive points and highlighting their effort and contribution to the educational process (intrapersonal evaluation) (Hasani, 2014; Hasani & Gholamali, 2007). The content of the evaluative document, which has ample space for verbal description and justification, is available to both students and parents. This way, the parents are fully notified about their children’s school progress so that they can in turn collaborate with the teachers to overcome any emerging problems. It constitutes a significant feedback tool targeting the individual motivation and the reinforcement of the students’ learning aptitude. Comparing students with their peers is avoided, as the main evaluative factor is the personal extent of achieving the preset goals and each learner’s performance is gauged in relation to his/her previous proficiency. The discussion of descriptive evaluation refers mainly to Greek primary schools (Grosdos, 2015, 2006; Haniotakis, 2006), since its application in secondary schools as it was applied only in some pilot schools in 2017.

Research Rationale

11

It goes without saying, that descriptive evaluation requires more effort and time from teachers or may result in nonrealistic assessment of the students which has been spotted in some assessment documents (Grosdos, 2015). Besides, the learner contributes to the final judgement of the evaluator, but his/her reaction is not always stable which may result in a nonrepresentative behavior during the observation span. Consequently, the implementation of systematic observation as an evaluative means could yield false conclusions which jeopardizes the objective interpretation of the assessor’s judgement (Dimitropoulos, 2003:115). In this vein, it could be argued that the combination of descriptive and formative assessment lead to positive student reaction which will augment his/her self-esteem, as immediate feedback is involved.

1.2.2.2. Peer Assessment Peer assessment assumes that the students’ awareness of their fellow students’ strengths and weaknesses is similar to the one of their teacher, they may recognize some of their personal traits more easily than the instructor and judge more objectively than their teacher. Ιt has a positive impact on the pedagogical process, as learners gain awareness of the evaluation criteria, improve their ability to question and critique new information and enhance their self-esteem (Harisis, 2006: 288). At the same time, as the students become both assessors and assessees, they are required to justify their judgement honestly and responsibly, and this renders peer assessment a practice which fosters critical thinking and socialisation. These social relationships which are built within the group can guide the teacher to exploit the students’ opinons positively in order to formulating a holistic estimation for each learner. Tsui & Ng (2000) in a Hong Kong upper secondary setting with 27 subjects researched the contribution of the role of teacher and peer feedback in the revision of two writing tasks in a six-week cycle. Triangulation of research methodology was employed integrating a questionnaire, recording of peer commentary sessions and semi-structured interviews with six students. Even though, the questionnaire disclosed that the participants opted for teacher comments rather than students’ feedback and incorporated them more often in their writing, the interviews revealed that their fellow students provided them with a ‘sense of audience.’ Besides, peer response augmented their understanding of their abilities and their shortcomings and promoted cooperative learning. Finally, writers who had integrated more teacher

12

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

feedback, rather than underestimate peer commentary, rated its potential to help them practice the writing process highly.

1.2.2.3 Self-Assessment Self-assessment is a kind of formative evaluation during which the students critically assess the quality of their output and determine the extent to which it reflects clear, prespecified goals or criteria and revise their work in relation to these aims (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2008). Its main difference from peer assessment is the kind of knowledge that the learners master: in selfassessment they take action whereas in peer assessment they critique the work of others. It could be employed both as a diagnostic and formative instrument as it empowers the students to acquire valuable information about their development and is essential to help them ameliorate their self-image, equipping them, simultaneously, with the sense of autonomy. It may sometimes serve as a stimulus in whole class or group discussions (MacBeath, 2001). Recent studies (Perrenoud, 2006: 14-18; Rolheiser & Ross, 2002: 81-95; Ross, 2006) have asserted that self-assessment is high priority for students, mainly because it: 1. Νurtures motivation for learning and the students greatly benefit from it because they learn to assume responsibility of their own learning and their self-trust is evolved. 2. Paves the way to a gradual change not only in knowledge and skills but in attitudes as well. The more students grow older, the more they tend to become cynical and question evaluation, but if they actively participate in the process and feel that their own opinion is taken into account in the final grade they receive, then they feel that their attitudes are objective. 3. Enables the students to assess their performance and provides the teacher with valuable information about their effort, the attainment of preset goals or lack thereof, their share in both their success or failure, and the degree to which they trust their own judgement. All the above mentioned information would have been very hard to garner through any other means. There has been skepticism regarding the students’ ability to provide reliable information about their proficiency (Butler & Lee 2010; Chen; 2006). It could also be argued that the reliability of marking is at stake due to

Research Rationale

13

the fact that multiple different dimensions are taken into account in the assessment of a piece of writing (Kapsalis-Haniotakis, 2010: 68). Thus, it should be stated that assessment should be predetermined and clear criteria as well as preset activities must be decided upon well in advance.

Chapter 2

Critical Review of the Teachinig Methodology and the Evaluation of the Greek Language in High Schools According to the recent tenets regarding the teaching of modern languages, learning a language does not merely depend on the methodology or the course book used but also on the way through which the students’ skills will be enhanced and their motivation will be augmented in order to turn teaching along with evaluation into a student’s personal pursuit (Iliopoulou, 2013). Within this framework the aims of the curriculum (Pedagogical Institute, 2000) brought about certain essential changes-innovations in the teaching of language, albeit at an early stage. These changes prioritized everyday spoken language and the holistic approach of the various fields of language teaching (ranging from listening and speaking to reading and writing). At the same time, a new focus emerged regarding linguistic diversity through embedding local and social dialects and the necessity to introduce a variety of activities in teaching as well as evaluation procedures. These activities involve cooperative learning, projects, individualized teaching, self-evaluation to mention but a few (Aggelakos, 2004). This tendency of radical reforming teaching was also integrated in the cross- thematic curriculum (2003) which stressed the need to design evaluation in order to support, monitor and improve the teaching process along with students’ performance qualitatively (and not merely quantitatively): “New teaching approaches, like the genre approach in the teaching of language require new stances towards evaluation… The main aim of linguistic teaching is not mainly the austere measurement but the improvement of the produced texts…. The new tenets concerning evaluation seek to engage students actively in both functions as mentioned above, including the written or spoken language that the students themselves produce” (General Part, cross-thematic curriculum, basic notions of assessment).

16

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

At the same time the need for a holistic approach to the teaching of language was consolidated (cross-thematic curriculum, Government Gazette, vol. B303/13-03-2003), new teaching practices were recommended attributing equal status to both spoken and written communicative language, lessons plans incorporating collaborative activities and cross-curricular tasks were designed and moreover, through the dissemination and capitalization on vital theoretical tenets, the significance of individualized learning centering on the potential and needs of every student was highlighted: “During assessment, the special traits of the students are taken into account as well as their personal way and pace of learning. In addition, more parameters are taken into account, such the level of the students’ language along with the opportunities each learner has in relation to learning due to his/her social and family background (General Part, Cross-thematic curriculum, Basic notions of assessment).

Thus, the teaching method determined by the cross-thematic curriculum deems language as a means of communication. In this respect, teaching language aspires mainly to help students communicate successfully rather memorize grammar rules. Thus, the most important goal is to help students not merely talk about language but use it in real life authentic communication settings. This shift of priorities leads education toward linguistic realism (i.e., acknowledging the importance of everyday speech during the teaching of the Greek language). This assumption enhances the argument that language is a system of communication among the members of a society. Furthermore, the teacher’s book of Modern Greek for high schools (Gavriilidou, Emmanoulidis, Petridou-Emmanoulidou, 2006: 7) maintains that the language used in a text constitutes a field of careful study in the process of language teaching. More particularly, the authors posit that “the linguistic teaching adopts the main assumptions of the communicative methodology, which are supplemented with the tenets of text-linguistics” (ibid). These principles point to an orientation which seeks to upgrade the teaching of language (Iliopoulou, 2008). Adopting this orientation, the assessment of language is viewed in the cross-thematic curriculum as a process which supplements language teaching in a reciprocal way. Teaching and assessment target the linguistic capacity of students through student-teacher collaboration while special emphasis is laid on self-assessment and peer-assessment:

Critical Review of the Teachinig Methodology and the Evaluation …

17

The evaluation techniques involve written or oral exams employing open or close-ended questions, semi-structured dialogue among the participants engaged in the learning process, projects, continuous observation, self-assessment or peer-assessment, a combination of the aforementioned tools etc. (General Part, Cross-thematic curriculum, 2003).

Our focus will now shift again to the teacher’s book of Modern Greek with regard to self- and peer-assessment. These practices constitute a three dimensional, practical, didactic and learning process which helps the learners trace their abilities, compare their texts with the ones of other writers and receive ample practice in evaluating them against certain criteria: A significant question arises: what does student assessment involve? It refers to deciding on the criteria that will serve as measurement tools of the outcome of the evaluation process and the emerging judgement concerning the degree to which the assessees’ performance has complied with set criteria. In other words, self-assessment does not require the students to grade their own linguistic products, but it entails their engagement in the determination of the appropriateness of the written or oral language they produced which should comply with assigned preconditions. By no means is this procedure linear: the criteria are clarified in the beginning of the process and then the linguistic assessment is conducted. It could rather be considered a cyclical process in that the criteria emerge from the texts they refer to and subsequently are applied to these types of texts (namely the students’ texts), they are continuously revised, enriched and negotiated in the classroom (Gavriilidou, Emmanoulidis, Petridou-Emmanoulidou, 2006: 10).

Unfortunately, educational reality is far from the aspirations of the Ministry of Education. Even though, the majority of assessment tests claim to focus on student self-assessment (Figure 1), they are comprised of open and cloze-ended questions aiming at the numerical evaluation of the students’ performance (i.e., grades), while there are only a few real selfassessment tasks (Iliopoulou & Zagga, 2021).

18

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Figure 1. Totality of authentic assessment criteria per class in the course books of modern Greek in junior high school.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that an attempt is made to decide on specific criteria each time: Listening and speaking: Most people that friends are very important for each person. Some people support the view that there are no real friends nowadays. Three of you will support the first argument and three will argue in favor of the latter. The two groups will elaborate on their arguments and the following day they will discuss them in class. Evaluation criteria: Each group will have to answer the other team’s questions within a set time (2-3 minutes). The dialogue should last up to 15 minutes. Your fellow classmates will decide which group was the best taking into account the following criteria i.e., which team managed to refute the claims of the other team, which team answered the opponents’ questions, which team used more persuasive arguments etc.

So, generally speaking samples of qualitative evaluation are rare and there are no safe guidelines about the way of conducting this type of assessment. It could be said that there are some references to qualitative evaluation in the cross-thematic curriculum which is combined with descriptive evaluation along with grades in order to limit grade-oriented schooling along with memorization and competition among students: Qualitative evaluation ensures clarity in the description of students’ progress. Thus, both the learners and their parents realize their

Critical Review of the Teachinig Methodology and the Evaluation …

19

shortcomings and any learning gaps as well as their efforts of active participation in the learning process. This kind of evaluation minimizes or totally negates the pressure for high grades and pointless memorization as well as useless competition among students (General Part, Cross-thematic curriculum, 2003).

Finally, both educators and students are barely familiar with contemporary evaluation methods (Katsarou & Dedouli, 2008: 195) which presuppose the participants’ willingness to devote time to implement and fully exploit alternative evaluation methods. So, even though educational stakeholders acknowledge the difference between “marking” and “evaluation’ (Kassotakis, 2013: 26), they insist on connecting students’ evaluation to grading. This assessment, though, pays attention to only one aspect of student performance prioritizing the quantitative parameter which uses only grades (Voulimioti & Deligianni, 2012: 40).

Chapter 3

Critical Pedagogy In educational research, the positivist theory attempts to gauge educational reality through a descriptive analysis rejecting the use of subjective methods. Thus, it focuses on objective measurement of educational data leaving aside any subjective interpretations. It mainly aims at collecting generalizable data which, nevertheless, cannot ensure a safe impact on school reality (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 111-112). The ethnographic model tries to fill this gap by exploring the sample under investigation while they experience and internalize the educational context they participate in. So, it could be said that the positivist approach dictates “general rules that monitor the behaviour of individuals…which are independent of their aims, though” (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 112). As a result, educational settings are determined by these rules as a whole without taking into account any variation of different educational settings, whereas interpretative educational research: 1. Prioritizes the subjective interpretations of the teachers involved in various educational settings (Carr & Kemmis, 1986: 136) 2. Does not take into account external parameters which distort our stances neither does it provide any recommendations concerning ways of overcoming the limitations they pose to participants. Going a step further, critical pedagogy (an approach which is both pedagogical and practical) claims that education should not be considered an isolated entity but an interaction with the other social fields, that if the political, the financial and the cultural. “Schooling must be deemed a cultural and historical process, whereby certain social groups are rated in different levels of power according to specific racial, class and gender classification” (Mc Laren, 2010: 285). In this vein, it aspires to boost people’s critical awareness with a view to their emancipation and social transformation. “The most important aspect that comes to the limelight….is the need to acknowledge the complexity of an attempt to articulate a pedagogical

22

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al. approach which questions the existing social situation and places emphasis on attaining a radical social, political and educational transformation” (Grollios, 2010: 56).

Even though, it attests the limited ability of school to achieve social change on its own, it corroborates that the cognitive skills and the value infused by teaching, as well as the various interactions that take place, could instill in people the faith in a struggle for a more fair society. “Schools cannot alter society but we can create in the classroom resistance cells providing pedagogical stereotypes of new ways of learning and social relationships which can be exploited in other fields involved in the attempt for a new, moral perspective of social justice” (Giroux, 2010: 120).

All proponents of this approach produce texts with a political orientation, while critical awareness is deemed a prerequisite of a collective political struggle and a vision for a democratic society. In the same vein, its definition denotes that the totality of its tendencies display a common goal: “to fortify the powerless people and transform existing social inequalities” (Mc Laren, 2010: 281). Such an educational process will empower students to realize the social dimension of evaluation, be it in the classroom or in society, and as a result develop the appropriate strength and courage of a broader social change (Darder, 2003; Mc Kernan, 2013). An interesting question arises: what is the role of the people who are asked to dynamically create a pedagogical approach with political implications? If they have evolved their own critical thinking, they can cooperate forming self-reflective groups and realize the importance of their contribution to the layout and function of society as well as its reproduction. “Action researchers differ from interpretative researchers in that they adopt a more active role” (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 241).

3.1. Action Research Traditionally, researchers explore social reality by using procedures and methods of science, comparing the accrued data against predetermined assumptions, which they seek to verify or reject. On the contrary, more recent approaches support the view that knowledge originates from an

Critical Pedagogy

23

interrelation and reciprocal communication between the researcher and the context under investigation (Greene, 1992). The present study focuses on action research which is an interactive research methodology.

3.1.1. The Components of Action Research Although, action research is difficult to be clearly defined due to its historical development and its various dimensions, it certainly constitutes a research methodology, in which practitioners are the main agents seeking to ameliorate their teaching practices. “This means that action research aspires to improve the existing social conditions” (Grundy, 2003: 29 in Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003) striving for the creation of a democratic society, since it involves “the incorporation of democratic values in research enabling, thus, the researchers to influence and even define the living and working status and acquire critical reasoning concerning the social conditions which favour dependence, inequality and exploitation” (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 218).

To this end, action research practitioners adopt a dialectic approach combining the objectivity of the positivist approach with the subjectivity of the interpretative approach. More particularly, the main research process (Figure 2) encompasses the following components: identifying a specific situation which could be considered problematic, investigating the causes of this problem and implementing various alternative practices in order to rectify the problem (Mills, 2003). Despite the plethora of definitions, there are certain features in this research tradition. The first significant component of action research that differentiates it from other research methodologies is the rejection of the dilemma of selecting between theory or practice, as it maintains that both notions supplement each other. Theory improves practice and practice contributes to the development of theory. Another important aspect is participation and cooperation. In other words, it presupposes the collaboration of different professionals along with the cooperation with university professors and researchers, who can enhance the theoretical framework and support the research in order to fully define a problematic area.

24

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Figure 2. The components of action research.

Figure 3. Action research as a dynamic process

In this context, equal relationships are a prerequisite so that selfevaluative communities can blossom whereby interaction will be the main element. Since the discrete aspects of action research are articulated, the need arises to demonstrate its twofold nature: on the one hand, it is self-reflective deploying the exploration of personal choices and stances, and on the other hand it intervenes in the process seeking not only the interpretation but also the evolution of the situation under consideration. The implementation of this view is in alignment with another essential goal of action research: developing the professionals’ role. Additionally, according to Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2011), action research is deemed the appropriate methodology, when certain knowledge is demanded concerning a specific problem in a specific situation or if a new approach should be embedded in the already existing situation. Therefore, it constitutes a dynamic research paradigm which provides researchers with the

Critical Pedagogy

25

opportunity and the obligation to examine and redesign the implications of their intervention (Figure 3). The potential of immediate intervention and analysis of the results renders this methodology ideal for limited range settings such as a school (Burnett & Merchant, 2011; Freire, 2000). Thus, as the focus of the present study is the school environment, acknowledging the appropriateness of action research obliges us to be more cautious towards educational recommendations and at the same time motivates us to seek new educational suggestions for a fairer society. In this respect, it is evident that action research does not merely record what really goes on in schools but centers on what education should do and the way it can fulfill its goal (Tοlbert, 1981: 142) – (Figure 3). In real life conditions, action research could be used in the following fields: • • • •

•

•

• •

Teaching methodology- replacing a traditional methodology with discovery learning Learning strategies- adopting a holistic, cross-curricular learning approach instead of teaching discrete subjects Evaluation procedures- improving ongoing assessment Attitudes and values- encouraging more positive stances towards working or changing the students value system regarding a specific important social issue In-service training and teacher professional developmentimprovement of teaching potential, development of new teaching methods, fostering critical reasoning, augmenting self-awareness Professional development of struggling teachers - improvement of teaching skills, development of new learning methods, development of analytical ability, development of self-knowledge level Behavior management and monitoring- gradual introduction of techniques managing to alter demeanor Management- increasing managerial abilities

3.1.2. Implementation of Action Research: Required Preconditions Before deciding on possible alternative techniques and elaborating on any problematic situation, the teachers’ self-reflective practice and critical

26

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

attitudes are deemed equally important. “This fact pinpoints the necessity of the active participation of the educators in a cooperative determination and design of theories that are related to these specific practices and as a result the creation of similar theories through action and feedback” (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 203-204). Notwithstanding, thus, the field that action research focuses on and taking into account that the practices selected by teachers are always influenced by the existing social conditions- “truth and action are socially and historically embedded”- (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 241), the social parameters in any educational research should also be examined, so that educational policies along with participants’ choices be interpreted. At the same time, the teacher-researchers’ self-reflection with respect to the applied practices should highlight the social dimensions of their options so that they can explore not only the aim of their methodology but its appropriateness or lack thereof. More particularly, the success of action research requires the teachers’ full awareness of their own attitudes regarding the pedagogical methods they apply along with the pedagogical tools that will maximize the students’ output. These new methods used by the teacher-researchers’ presuppose (Neumann, 2013): 1. The practitioner’s capacity to determine a holistic estimation of the teaching situation under consideration (i.e., studying the students’ cognitive level or investigating a case study of one student with special needs). 2. The teachers’ metacognitive skills (i.e., their ability to process their own cognition, knowledge and attitudes) which are classified in a hierarchical order of specific rules such as: • The educational practices rules; that is, general regulations applicable to a great range of settings (e.g., teaching methodology, cognitive strategies), • Practical pedagogical rules that address and can be implemented in specific cases (e.g., learners with learning difficulties), • Mental images that determine the teacher’s course of action. Furthermore, each education reformation which is put in effect during an educational action research or is suggested at the stage of retro-reflection encloses a certain social aspiration. “What should be born in mind, is that both educational and social practices, including a more extensive educational reformation is a social one” (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 271).

Critical Pedagogy

27

An action research could involve: • •

All the people who work and actively participate in a specific setting External associates who act as critical friends serving a facilitating and advisory role, offering help only when asked to.

This differentiation in the role of a facilitator differentiates and defines his/her duty which can have different aspects: •

•

•

Technical, whereby the data of an external research may contribute to the improvement of the practices of the study under consideration. Practical, in which facilitators and professionals cooperate, design future activities collaboratively and monitor any results and changes. Emancipatory, which includes practical elements but also introduces a broader cooperation and alterations in the existing practices (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 264-8).

No matter the route it follows, the process is more of a spiral rather than a linear path, resulting in deeper understanding of the dimensions of each situation as well as the role of all stakeholders. More analytically, it comprises four parts: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Observation Design Action-Observation Evaluation/Critical reflection (Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003:75).

This cyclical procedure is repeated by researchers not only once but frequently until the results are maximized. Therefore, a spiral process is formed containing creative feedback. Every new cycle looks at the previous cycle to identify and justify causes of the process so far and then looks forward again to make the necessary changes (Breuing, 2011). These features constitute the main constituents of action research.

28

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

3.1.3. Emancipatory Action Research The diverse methodologies of action research are closely linked to its historical evolution as well as the political and social context within which each methodology flourished. Focusing on the emancipatory one, which is the research instrument of the current study, it should be stated that “…it is an empowerment process for the participants […], and significant as it introduces the practices for organizing both the enlightenment and the change” (Carr & Kemmis, 2002: 269). In this sense, the acquired knowledge, which presupposes the promotion of self-reflection and the development of individual interpretations and values, serves the purpose of not only enhancing school practices but also developing critical thinking and inducing social changes.

3.1.4 Benefits of Action Research According to Altrichter, Posch, & Somekh (2001: 298) action research brings about: •

•

•

•

The professional development of individual teachers who fortify their judgement, ameliorate their practical theories and develop their potential to act through self-reflection and self-feedback. In this respect, they assume autonomy and by obtaining a positive selfimage, they cease to blindly adopt theories, but try to actively participate in solving practical problems, identifying the sources of these problems and designing solutions. The evolution of curricula and the improvement of the setting being researched, by upgrading the quality of teaching and learning using effective strategies. The improvement of all teachers, since each member’s practices are subject to criticism; enhancing, thus, the knowledge of all practitioners. The progress of educational research.

Corroborating the above tenets, Delong (2004) states that when teachers carry out action research in their classroom, there are benefits affecting the educational setting outside the classroom, like the concentric circles which are produced when a pebble is thrown into a lake. In other words, the profits

Critical Pedagogy

29

are visible in the students and they expand to the teachers, the school and the educational system at large. More specifically: •

•

•

•

•

Students’ benefits: they can be both direct (in that the teaching and learning process is improved) and indirect (in that other school-wide practices are also affected). Teachers’ advantages: The experience of conducting research in their own classroom makes them aware of what works and what does not. This could either be a transformative experience (or a negative one) which in turn may either validate their current practice or lead them to seek ways to alter it. Benefits for schools: one of the benefits of in-classroom research is that the knowledge, skills and values of the students, the practitioners and the parents are investigated and are shared, leading to an immediate improvement of the school culture. In this respect, a useful dialogue takes places among all the involved stakeholders. Advantages of the school unit: in an era where responsibility is a prerequisite, the knowledge that comes from action research leads the participants to commit themselves to improvement. It also brings forward strategies and programs that have been proven effective for students in a certain setting. Gains for education: An increasing amount of knowledge generated by research conducted by practitioners in many countries worldwide. This knowledge becomes the teachers’ voice –an element that has often been underestimated by academics, school administrators and politicians.

3.1.5. Limitations of Action Research for the Practitioner in the Greek Educational System Any objections to the usefulness and effectiveness of action research arise mainly from positivists, who claim that any results that are not generalizable can only be deemed practical, solving only certain problematic areas and merely serving the immediate rather than the general socioeconomic framework. Besides, problems may emerge when the accrued results are interpreted using conventional academic criteria or when they derive from

30

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

roles which were assigned to teachers, not taking into account their own free will (Zoukis, 2007: 198-199). Regardless of the criticism leveled at action research, it seems to be a challenging option which generates more tangible data compared to traditional research. However, is it feasible for the Greek teacher? Zografou (in Bagakis, 2002) considers action research achievable if a new research tradition is supported, whereby the practitioners and the experts (i.e., the experienced researchers) cooperate and co-decide harmoniously. This way, the gap between theory and practice will be bridged for the Greek teachers and it could be possible to deal with school problems more successfully. But, the most important obstacle that action research faces are the difficulties that arise in its implement because of the rigid existing educational context. In an attempt to highlight the potential of the methodology along with the constraints it encounters during its implementation, Beattie (1989, p. 69) asserts that: Maybe action research needs a theoretical background from academic researchers: a theory which can justify how action research undertaken by emancipated teachers may be acceptable in hierarchical systems that exhibit excessive centralization.

Part B: The Research

Chapter 4 Research Design and Process 4.1. Aim and Scope of the Research The aim of the present research is to investigate the impact of implementing authentic forms of alternative evaluation (of the Greek language) on students’ awareness and behavior in order to alter their concept of assessment. In this framework assessment is expected to cease to validate the selective role of schools, to stop classifying learners on an imaginary scale which is arbitrarily contrived, but to engage them in the process, by simultaneously activating their creative, critical thinking. To this end, the following parameters will be investigated: 1. The assessment preferences of students in the subject of the Greek language. 2. The appropriateness of authentic assessment in this subject with the purpose of empowering students both linguistically and socially. 3. The ensuing search for practices in order to formulate assessment contexts which will manage to lead to the creation of a liberating pedagogy.

4.2. The Research Questions The present research posits that each educational context is unique and investigates evaluation processes by exploring all the parameters in a given setting as well as the external conditions and broader educational and political framework, whereby the suggested educational practice will be put into effect. More specifically: •

What are the evaluative requirements in the Greek language class which are in line with the students’ interests and needs? Can appropriate assessment parameters leading to a liberating pedagogy be set?

34

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

•

•

To what extent can authentic evaluation in this subject can empower the learners? What pedagogical tools can be used to successfully design a relevant evaluative method? Which authentic evaluation practices best represent learners’ needs and create a learning environment ideal for such an intervention?

Responses to these research questions will transcend the borders of traditional assessment of rigid knowledge. In other words, it seeks to evaluate the learning process –something that requires higher order thinking skills from students (Dochy, Gijbels & Segers, 2006).

4.3. Research Methodology The selection of the appropriate research methodology was based on the purpose of the research as well as our values and attitudes toward action research (Elliott, 1993: 196‐198). Moreover, the fact that the researcher also implements the intervention (Kitchen & Stevens, 2005; Koutselini, 2008b; Louizidou & Koutselini, 2007), provides teachers with ample opportunities, such as interpreting their teaching practices, identifying their shortcomings, opting for and piloting new methodologies, self-reflecting, evaluating their own techniques, redesigning their decisions, being gradually empowered and attaining self-confidence (Avgitidou, 2009; Koutselini, 2008b; Koutselidou & Patsalidou, 2015;) by fine-honing their ability to reformulate the curriculum where evaluation methods are concerned. In order to determine which areas needed to be investigated so that we could begin collecting the appropriate data, we considered the following questions (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 2001: 87‐89): • • • • • •

How did this situation arise? Which parameters of the specific situation are the most important? Which factors influence the situation and how? Are there any other fields influenced by our research? Will our research have an impact on any aspects of the classroom, the school, the families or society in general? What are the broader social and political dimensions that must be considered with respect our research question?

Research Design and Process

•

35

What are the relationships among the classroom reality, the external factors, the individuals’ decisions and any other components of the setting under consideration?

As we studied the relevant literature, we decided not let our own beliefs, our attitudes or assumptions regarding this specific issue affect us, so that we could objectively address the research questions. Our conversations with the principal and other colleagues along with the careful study of the literature helped us better understand the issue including its multidimensional reality (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh 2001: 86). Having answered the initial questions, we realized that in order to better explore and interpret the situation, we would have to collect the necessary data from various sources (not just the students’ evaluation sheets). It is more than evident, that the selection of multiple research tools is a prerequisite as action research constitutes a heavily context-dependent approach (Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003: 37). At the same time, we realized that questionnaires are not appropriate for a qualitative research methodology such as action research, since it produces quantitative data which does not offer in-depth analysis. A cloze-ended questionnaire leaves out essential information. Furthermore, when researchers work in the field they are researching, they should be alert because qualitative methods employ all types of data (e.g., any comments made by the participants, new phenomena that the researchers might discover, even the way the students sit or converse). Apart, from a detailed analysis, though, qualitative methodologies demand the recording of the participants’ “voice” and the way this attitude is articulated (Eisner, 1991: 217, in Paraskevopoulou & Kollia, 2008: 4; Russell & Gregory, 2003). All the above mentioned parameters generated the following criteria for data collection: • • •

observation keeping a journal recording both the students’ and parents’ stances through semistructured interviews following the criticism and repetition cycle of action research (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 2001: 26; Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003: 156).

Classroom observation was chosen because it enables researchers (Woolfolk, 2007):

36

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

• • • •

To obtain useful findings about their research setting and form a well-rounded view of the fields that need improvement. To formulate a well-founded attitude toward the teaching context, the participants’ emotions, and the group members’ stances. To propose research alternatives during the study, taking into consideration the uniqueness of each situation. To decide on immediate intervention and reformulate the context of the situation under exploration.

Since many details may indeed slip during an observation session due to constraints and external factors and that the researchers are not only observers but part of the investigated phenomenon (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 2001: 134), we sought more data collection tools. We thus decided to keep a journal as well. The observation journals aimed to enrich the evaluation (that is students’ interactions during evaluation, airing views, emotions and assessment attitudes) along with our self-reflection (Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003). As we intended to systematically observe ourselves implementing the evaluative methods we had designed as well as the learners’ reactions and then recording what had been observed, a more comprehensive and holistic perspective of our actions would be formed along with their implications, which would have been rather superficial had we focused only on a mere presentation of our classroom (Avgitidou, Tsalagiorgou & Marselou, 2006). In this attempt to delve more deeply in the exploration of the situation and to attain a systematic analysis, we included in our journal a concise yet very careful recording of the parents’ stances which were expressed during our meetings (Varsamidou, 2012). Since our aim was to avoid producing a simply descriptive journal and enhance the interpretation of the entries along with the correlation of the description of one problem to a specific strategy in its solution, we decided on the following procedure, recommended by Avgitidou (ibid) (Table 1). More specifically, apart from the different functions activated by the various questions (such as description, understanding, suggestion, evaluation, feedback), the process of answering them presupposed the presentation of specific facts and the substantiation of any recordings against the framework of the class under consideration.

Research Design and Process

37

Table 1. Axes of the diary What is going on? How can we identify it? Which action should we follow? How do we evaluate our selected method of action? Which action should be implemented in the following stage?

Description Feedback, tracing of causes, understanding, interpretation Suggesting a solution based on understanding and interpretation Screening of the results Self-reflection

In this sense, a journal was designed based on the above assumptions which incorporates a specific date, concise recordings of everyday educational procedure, descriptions of well organized activities and the materials which were utilized, any notes concerning the research questions, as well as students’, parents’, colleagues’ and the principal’s comments. Then, in order to conduct the research in an impeccable way, the organization and classification of the data accrued from everyday recording was deemed imperative. To this end, we codified the data included in the journal. In the beginning, the journal was read repeatedly and some important elements appearing regularly (e.g., evaluation sheets, students’ positive or negative comments and our opinions) were pre-coded. During the initial coding of the data, the first classification surfaced which included comments by the participants regarding the evaluation tools. Then, the interrelation of various elements which determined their classification in specific sections in order to ease their critical evaluation was explored. More specifically, (bearing in mind, of course, the authentic evaluation procedure) the following components were concurrently taken into account: • • • • • •

Traditional and authentic evaluation Their pedagogical dimension Students’ initiative Management of learning problems The amount of students’ homework Recognition of the function and the necessity of evaluation

38

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

At the same time, a short semi-structured interview of the students was carried out after each research phase (it was written down with their own consent rather than being recorded electronically because their parents chose this form). This decision was made mainly since the sample group was very young and required their parents’ consent. More specifically, according to the formulation of a semi-structured interview, even though, the researcher predetermines the main orientation of the interview (that is the axes under investigation or the included questions and issues), he/she is free, at the same time, to alter the process during the interview if it is deemed necessary (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011). Moreover, we had carried out an adequate literature review which revealed that the personal communication of the interviewer and the learner results in the collection of ample material regarding the phenomenon under exploration, which a researcher might have not even had anticipated in the beginning of the study. In the same line, the interview enables the recording of true facts without tampering or downplaying the importance of the answers (Patton, 2002). Following this framework, open-ended questions were opted for, with a view to both attaining enjoyable communication during the interview and enabling the interviewees to gain insight into all issues, airing their opinion freely as well as any concern they may have even though they are too young to delve deeply into any issue. All these tools aimed to diagnose the difficulties and any problems that might surface during their assessment and simultaneously unearth any plausible explanation which could justify these difficulties. To this end, the questions did not require a strict time limit, as our main target was the unimpeded expression of the students’ views. Then, in the second stage, based on the assumptions expressed in our journal entries, we organized relevant interventions. This means that the interpretation of the evaluation process of the Greek language was filtered through the students’ and their parents’ claims rather than based on what actually took place in the classroom. In other words, it felt like reframing evaluation practices all together, since they are not explored during their actual implementation but are based on students’ and parents’ comments. Even though, classroom research is of utmost significance, as it yields unexpected results (regarding the issue under investigation), the identification of the existing practices taking place in a classroom setting which derive from the attitudes of the participants are equally important. It could be said that its importance lies on the fact that through the participants’ speech and its critical analysis one can clearly identify the

Research Design and Process

39

deeper ideologies of this sample, which is an element of utmost importance, if it is taken into consideration that these ideas are deemed very important and conducive to the formulation of classroom practices. The suggested research was designed bearing the above in mind. More specifically, inspired by a student-centred approached, it gave priority to independent forms of authentic evaluation rather than semi-structured ones: a.

Descriptive evaluation from the teacher and the students within a cooperative setting. b. Peer evaluation of group work and the individual contribution of the group members by means of holistic rubrics1. c. Student self-evaluation. It should be noted that during the research, various factors were taken into account which had not been defined in the beginning (i.e., statement of the problem). The specific study was clarified more through the systematic analysis of the data as well as discussions with a critical friend during each phase which in turn offered a variety of different angles to the researchers. Apart from the data which we collected using specific, systematic techniques, we also took into account any data which preexisted before the project. We realized that in most cases, these findings are more reliable, since they do not depend solely on the teachers’ practices. Moreover, they provide extra information about events which would not have been accessible had other methodologies been used. Such data included various documents such as recording of the students’ progress and any performance development and undocumented facts that were brought about by spontaneous observation. It could be added that “we should take care to capitalize on systematic observation methods so as to supplement and improve intuition rather than substitute it” (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 2001: 127‐131). Finally, it should be noted that the implementation of a supportive culture and the creation of an encouraging content supporting trial and error (Wagner, 1997) which was the main pedagogical ideology of the school

1

The holistic scales assess students’ work as a whole, study the quality of what they produce and provide a general description of their performance on a specific activity. At the same time, since less details can be analyzed on a holistic rubric than on an analytic one, it learners seem to favor it more, as they can internalize it more than the analytic one (Montgomery, 2000).

40

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

administration allowed us to design and apply the present research without any second thoughts.

4.4. Design and Procedure of the Research 4.4.1. The Planning of the Research Course The work evolved into three (3) action cycles with each cycle explicitly following the steps of the action research paradigm: • • • • • •

Research objectives Research questions Action Planning Data analysis Conclusions Reflection (Figure 4) Of course, we understood that because action research is an ongoing process, it was possible to reframe our goals, views and practices and therefore modify the action cycles we had initially designed.

1st cycle:

2nd cycle:

Teachers’ descriptive analysis Peer evaluation of the students’ progress

Figure 4. Action research cycles.

3rd cycle: Self-evaluation

Research Design and Process

41

After the data was collected, it was reshuffled and processed with the assistance of the facilitator and the critical friend. The creative stage of the analysis (Altrichter & Posch & Somekh, 2001: 181) was carried out as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Reading the data (careful examination) Selecting and categorizing the data Presenting and interpreting the data Drawing conclusions, i.e., finding the problem and the degree of its existence and diffusion (the answer to the first research question).

In order to facilitate the reading of the students’ words which is necessary for the analysis, they were written down (with their consent, of course), as the request for the use of a digital tape recorder was not accepted by the parents of the students of the specific class. The categorization of the data (stage 2) was carried out a) temporally (per day and hour) and b) qualitatively (based on the categories of the observation grid) (Avgitidou, n.d.: 35-37). Their analysis was not completed during the critical stage however (that is, the understanding that it would be good for the data to be further checked and for the researchers to delve deeper into the data by interpreting behaviors that were recorded; thus, preparing to address the second question). The detailed presentation of the individual cycles was followed by transformation. Finally, it is emphasized that an effort has been made for the elaboration of the individual research cycles and the use of specially designed assessment tools to serve the goals of the gradual development of children’s critical thinking and the cultivation of their selfconcept and self-esteem.

4.5. The Participants 4.5.1. The Students Although the initiative to carry out the research was taken by us, it was understood that changes and improvements in the situation would not have been possible without all the people involved in the project being informed and involved. It is worth emphasizing that the participants in such a type of action research are not involved in the research process as objects for research. On the contrary, once they are informed about the research goals

42

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

and are convinced of its significance, they become a source of information as well as agents of action, change, and improvement of the conditions under consideration (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 2001: 24, 156; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988: 21‐ 28). In this respect, 26 students (15 girls and 11 boys) of the 2nd Gymnasium participated in this research. The school they attended is the Experimental School of the University of Thessaloniki, which is located in an urban area, and the students are admitted through a draw. In terms of their school performance (as far as it can be determined from their grades and the evaluation criteria of their teachers), they fare in the middle to high range (the class average was 17.8/12, while it ranged between 15.2/12 and 19.9/12). As for the social group to which each child belonged, based on their parents’ professions and education level, one could deduce that as a whole the students came from middle to high socioeconomic backgrounds. Their parents were very interested in their children’s school success and invested in their education. Also, they always attended school events and were very interested in what was happening on the school premises. Based on the teachers’ comments, the information I collected regarding the children was contradictory. Some teachers spoke of “lively”, “edgy” and “unruly” children and others of “quiet”, “indifferent” and “difficult” children. The question then is who would have the final say within the team during the peer-evaluation phase and who would be the ones who would silently go with the flow? We also had our share of questions: How would we keep a balance within the team? What would the relationship between the team members be? How would they get along with each other? Would its members gain anything from this experience? How would they behave within the team? If things do not work out, would it be possible to find a different solution? How else could it be resolved in order for it to make sense? (Yialom, 2006: 355).

4.5.2. The Researchers As teacher-researchers, we were assigned a dual role (Katsarou‐ Tsafos, 2003: 17): classroom teachers and researchers exploring all the parameters of our teaching.

Research Design and Process

43

4.5.3. The Facilitator Like any other innovation, the introduction of action research undoubtedly necessitates a change in attitudes and perceptions (Cuban, 1992; Fullan, 2001), patience, time, effort, good planning and proper coordination (MacGilchrist et al., 2004; Fullan, 1993; Thornton & Yoong, 2011). Thus, along with the encouragement and support provided by a facilitator, researchers should familiarize themselves with the action research theoretical framework as well as with the inherent reflective process which in turn will help them become analytical and thoughtful (Joyce, 1991; Joyce & Showers , 1988). Consequently, it was considered necessary to have an external collaborator-facilitator, with knowledge in research and interpersonal relationships (MacBeath, 2001). The facilitator on the other hand, had an advisory and facilitative role in supporting the process, providing information from his own knowledge and expertise and generally contributing to the investigation of the researchers’ reflection. His main focus was whether the action research would not remain merely a technical tool of a particular experimental application, but would eventually lead the researchers to assume a critical stance toward the evaluative material they had been using until then. In order to achieve the above goal, the creation of a cordial and warm climate with the researcher was considered a necessary condition, so that a framework could be created “where the theory expert will stand close to the researcher in a process of mutual learning” (Demertzis, 2006: 466).

4.5.4. The Critical Friend Since the project was part of the educational process, it had to be a collaborative effort as well (Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003: 156; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988: 21-28). This means that in addition to the students and the researchers, a critical friend who understood the situation we wanted to investigate joined our team (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 2001: 101). As in any action research project, this was very important because we trusted her with our data and in turn expected her to understand our beliefs, concerns and aspirations and show the will to deal with the specific situation in detail (Katsarou & Tsafos, 2003: 85-86). As a doctoral candidate in the field of Literature evaluation, she was considered appropriate to strengthen the research through her observations, to assume a critical stance and to

44

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

contribute to the reflective process. After each observation, we would have a post-op meeting where everyone would express their views on what the positive aspects of the project as well as on what needed improvement.

4.5.5. Those Involved in the Research Apart from the above individuals, it was deemed crucial to include the following stakeholders as well: •

•

•

Parents-guardians of children: Parents are the ones who can push students toward their personal development and should be considered as allies of teachers. In general, it is important for parents to be present in school events and partake in the daily educational reality, while teachers should respect them and cooperate with them. Parents should not be “against”, but “with” the teachers, since the link that connects them to the educational process is improving their children’s learning. The management of the school: The principal of the school represents the culture and dynamics of the school and according to a number of international surveys (Purkey & Smith, 1983: 443; Stall & Mortimore, 1997: 28-30) constitutes the key guarantee factor of the school’s quality. In the context of their duties, they are called to not only exercise management but also at the same time to take a leading role and inspire teachers and students. Other colleagues: During the project, the researchers assumed responsibility for changing their professional practice by cooperating with other colleagues on the school’s premises. Collaboration contributes to changes not only in teaching practices but also in the perceptions of teachers.

Chapter 5

Conducting the Research 5.1. The Impetus The drive behind this project can be linked to practical problems that arise during the evaluation of students’ (written) language production. In particular, we observed an incessant, almost daily, complaining in the grades they received. “Will we write an essay again?”, “And why did I get a 13 (out of 20)? Didn’t I write the entire essay?”, “How much more did I have to write?”, “Shouldn’t you ask our opinion at some point?”, “My mom will yell at me again” were some of our students’ comments. We had been troubled by this extensive reference to the written work from the beginning of the academic year. This obsession underscores the place that evaluation holds in the minds of children. It is extremely important to do well on written exams (not only essays) and to manage to obtain excellent grades. Minimal importance is given to the essence knowledge gained. At the same time, we also understood that the current system distorts their relationship with their family, since their education is linked to a system of punishments and rewards given by their parents based on “the grades they received”, as well as their relationship with their teachers. While teachers are responsible for guiding, supporting and helping them grow intellectually, they are also the ones who will either reward or punish them based on the grade they assign. In other words, we observed that the shift of interest from the essence of the educational process to obtaining high grades tends to become a dominant social behavior, as a result of which the efforts to produce substantial educational work are hindered. In order to determine whether or not this was a misconception of their overall assessment of education, we resorted to activating “tacit knowledge” through a discussion with the students (Altrichter & Posch & Somekh, 2001: 84), asking for more information about the frequency of such complaints in other subjects. What the students revealed confirmed our initial finding that the dominant evaluation model is not desirable and should be replaced by a more studentfriendly and democratic one. Of course, they had to understand that it is one thing to advocate for an alternative form of assessment and another to

46

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

recommend the abolishment of assessment all together. In this context, we decided that we had to work together in an effort to finally change the status quo. In addition, we knew that a number of misconceptions by teachers themselves make it difficult to make effective use of assessment (Tomlinson, 2005). The first of these is related to the objectives of the assessment itself (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013): many teachers equate assessment with grading, thus hampering students’ ability to learn. We firmly believed that only a form of assessment that probes into the level of achievement of the learning objectives and the progress made by each student compared to their starting point and their specific weaknesses could play a decisive role in promoting new knowledge. This way the competitive climate that was gradually developing in the classroom could be avoided, as the assessment would be comparative, indicating where each student stood in relation to their classmates. To achieve this, of course, we realized that it was necessary to create internal evaluation incentives, aided by the perception that success is based on a continuous and systematic effort. We deemed it crucial to give students a descriptive report of their achievements where the evaluation criteria would be written and their progress would be documented. Unfortunately, the fact that any effort to implement authentic assessment in Greek education are often unplanned, made our work difficult. Based on our readings, we concluded that authentic assessment presupposes authentic teaching and learning, probes into situations of daily practice and enables students to build new knowledge on what they have already learned. Thus, if the contents of the learning process were determined by the individual experiences of each student in the group he/she participated in, we would be given the opportunity to promote the holistic perception of the world through the experienced reality and provide him/her with the opportunity to collaborate, to influence things, to form an opinion, to co-decide on activities and to evaluate them (Pantazis & Sakellariou, 2005: 123; Sakellariou, 2005: 45, 2002: 13). In fact, based on Mac Beath (2001a: 157-166, 2001b: 63) the framework of authentic assessment forms the main objectives of the assessment process: to determine what students learn and how they learn, having at the same time the possibility and the ability to evaluate for themselves the value of the learning experience. Of course, it is impossible for the teacher (as an evaluator) to teach effectively without providing constant feedback on the student’s performance, while facing many other practical problems as well (e.g., number of students, insufficient material infrastructure, lack of exemplary administration). Based

Conducting the Research

47

on the above reasoning, teaching is limited to an act of good faith, yet the challenge is to develop an assessment system that will greatly relieve the teacher of this burden and place this responsibility on the students (or even the parents when necessary). Furthermore, we believed that the learning outcomes of the curriculum should not replace its components (i.e., content, teaching and assessment methods, timetables, etc.) but are called upon to play a dominant role, defining the type and relative value of these components. We discussed the context of all the above-mentioned concerns with the facilitator and decided to carry out the research the subsequent school year. In addition, we deemed that second year junior high school students are at a turning point in their lives since they are transitioning to the adolescent and begin to approach school matters with more maturity and responsibility. Of course, they also show extreme behaviors, they want to grow up fast, and they react negatively to many things, but we felt these situations are more controlled in the school context.

5.2. Conducting the Research The research was carried out in the following successive phases: • • • • •

the creation of an initial exploratory program of evaluating students in the Greek language course, the practical application - implementation of the initial exploratory program, observation, as a predominantly useful tool for collecting and studying the data of this case study, critical thinking both in assessing the initial and ongoing evaluation and the development of the intervention program, the revision of the original exploratory program, which, in turn, led to the identification and definition of the objectives of the intervention program being revised each time.

In more detail, we initially devoted sufficient time to the literature review in order to obtain a clear picture of action research and how it is conducted. September 20th was set as the day of the meeting with the facilitator. In the first phase, we considered it necessary to present the basic needs of the class taught as well as the school. In addition, we discussed

48

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

some cognitive problems that had been identified the previous school year regarding the students’ attitude toward assessment. With his help we realized that the problem were not the students’ cognitive skills but the existing assessment practices. So, we decided to focus on improving students’ perceptions of assessment. Thus, the problem was identified (the evaluation of students in a framework of authority) and actions were designed and implemented to thoroughly determine its dimensions: 1. Discussion with the principal - The principal of the school had experience in creating a working environment that would contribute to the realization of the school’s goals. He was understanding and had patience, and, above all, he respected the ideas of others and tried to create a warm atmosphere within the school. He could also handle problems and suggest workable solutions. The most important thing is the fact that he was open to new ideas and contributed to the creation of a school unit that functions as an authentic learning community. When we mentioned to him the idea of carrying out action research within the school unit, which would benefit all colleagues and especially the students, his reaction was absolutely positive: the school must be open to research and function as a learning community. The first contact with him was decisive and gave the mark of the cooperation that would follow. We wrote about it in our journal (3/9/2016): “If the action research took place in a hostile, suspicious and negative environment, it would not have an educational character, it might not have resulted in the professional development of those involved. Involvement in action research means, first, that there is evolution, development, and problems are resolved. Therefore, the climate should be set in order for the research to unfold. And in this particular case, where the action research is to be carried out in a school unit, it is the principal who pulls the strings and sets the context. The meeting with him went very well. We briefly explained what we had planned for the current year and asked permission for the research. He told us emphatically that every school must accept innovative projects, so that we can finally get away from the practices of the past. We were, in part, impressed by his pioneering attitude: colleagues who have a long history and experience in education usually reject change. However, we had known this particular principal for several years and we knew very well what he meant, but also that he stands by his word: every year the school carries out projects, takes part in competitions, students receive many awards, and innovative educational programs are implemented. Therefore, we consider the reaction sincere… It is very important for us to have the acceptance and support of

Conducting the Research

49

the person who leads the school. Research cannot be conducted when there is a hostile atmosphere or when there is denial and resistance. We know very well that the principal’s attitude will affect the course of the research and, consequently, we feel satisfied with the acceptance we received.” 2. Discussions with teacher-colleagues - Within the context of this research, the collaboration with the school teachers was a fundamental component of the project and its development began very early, from the first meetings with the teachers’ association at the beginning of the school year. The fact that we were members of the association worked positively and, thus, no one treated the project with distrust or suspicion. We noted in our journal (5/9/2016) the following: “During the first discussions we had with our colleagues we tried to set the context for the research. We explained exactly what action research is and what our role would be. We would normally evaluate our own classes, and, being integrated into the daily professional and educational reality, we would be able to observe it systematically and seek change. The concept of change, of course, alienates many people. One can hardly give up years of practice related to teaching and assessment and adopt new ones the effectiveness of which is not safe or certain. We had learned from these initial discussions with colleagues that the concept of authentic evaluation was not completely unknown. However, there was confusion about how to use it. “How do you evaluate your students?”, “What is the reaction of your students?”, “Are they asking you for alternative types of evaluation?” These were fundamental questions that our colleagues posed so we had the opportunity to approach them collectively during the school year. The atmosphere during these first days was extremely friendly and pleasant. Everyone’s comments were encouraging and almost everyone assured us that they would work with us on whatever happened.” 3. Discussions with parents - From the beginning of the research, the cooperation with the students’ parents was particularly important. We noted the following in our journal (4/9/2017): “It is important for the parents to consent to the research project and for us to make it clear to them that it is grounded in the literature. Since there is an instated formal institutional framework regarding student assessment, which we cannot ignore nor bypass, we must stress that formal assessment (i.e., written and oral exams) will be carried out along with authentic assessment procedures. We met with them on the first day of school. In our journal, we pointed out the following (10/9/2016): “Once the Ayasmos (holy water blessing –religious ritual) ended, we asked the principal to have a discussion in person with the

50

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

students’ parents and he granted us permission to do so. However, not all the parents were present (mostly the mothers were). We tried to explain in simple words what we were planning. We talked to them about authentic evaluation procedures and assured them that the implementation would not be outside the instated institutional framework. We introduced the concept of authentic evaluation, making parallel references to the concepts of self-action and descriptive evaluation as well as peer- and self-evaluation. We emphasized that the most important thing is for the children themselves to become evaluators of their own work and be able to assess themselves. The idea was enthusiastically received. The parents admitted that it was the first time that they had heard of something like that. They also thought that they should encourage their children to assume a different approach to the language lesson at school and we assured them that we would be by their side, so that we could all change this mentality of grading. I think that our previous acquaintance facilitated this first meeting. We had taught their children, they knew us well and they seemed to trust us. It is also important to mention that the principal spoke highly of us and our efforts to the parents shortly before we met them and that was extremely encouraging.” Subsequently, tasks were developed and implemented to solve the problem. The tasks were evaluated through observation of the teaching process, which fueled the reflection and dialogue we had with the facilitator, and were redesigned throughout the study. Finally, we collected quantitative (final evaluation essays) and qualitative data (student interviews) for the final evaluation of the action. The action research was carried out in three cycles following the spiral model (see Figure 1). Throughout the research, the external researcher-facilitator had a facilitating and advisory role, offering assistance, if requested, supporting the process, providing information from his own knowledge and experience, and generally contributing to the broadening of the researchers’ concerns. Monitoring the evolution of the production of the material and reflecting on the process was a source of reflection for the researcher-facilitator himself. His main focus was on whether the research would not merely provide a technical tool for a specific experimental application, but would ultimately lead to a critical attitude toward the educational material employed by the researchers. This critical attitude would help us choose the appropriate educational material and give us the opportunity to create educational material that would fulfill our respective teaching needs.

Conducting the Research

51

5.2.1. Cycle A The first cycle was carried out in four stages. The first step was the design of the research. The project was conducted between September 15th– 30th, 2016. September 20th was the day the critical friend would come to observe the lesson. If the school timetable permitted it, we agreed to her observe a lesson every week in order to have a complete picture of the project and to contribute to the completion of the evaluation sheet we created. In the afternoon of the same day, we invited the parents again for a debriefing meeting. We considered it appropriate during this meeting to make a more extensive reference to the subject of descriptive assessment and to point out to them exactly how we function in the classroom. We explained to them that the grade on the exam, whatever grade, does not matter to me. “This was strange. We saw it in their eyes, but we also saw the reactions of some colleagues who were present and were listening in. They looked at us with curiosity. We had reiterated it many times: the one and only grade on the exam does not tell us anything. We insisted on a formative evaluation process that would involve the person being evaluated” we noted in our journal (20/9/2016) and continued” ... as we looked into the parents’ eyes, we thought to ourselves ‘how would be able to persuade them? With what strategy?’ The parents reacted the same way the children did: How could one change years of practices in their minds? And if we accept that the children may be different because they are younger and more receptive to change, what could be done about the parents? When were they evaluated this way? Where did they learn that “this is the right way and does not need to change”? Fortunately, the parents know us, and they trust us. If we were in another school, things might have been even more difficult, because it would be difficult for the parents, but also the colleagues, to accept us. With all these thoughts and suggestions in mind, they would see us rather suspiciously….” This was no longer a typical assessment scheme at the end of a long process, where the teacher pulls the strings and plays a leading role, but an ongoing self-assessment of the teacher and the students targeting the personal development of the learner as well as the professional development of the teacher. This is exactly the message we wanted to convey to the parents.

52

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

So, during the design phase, we designed the educational intervention of the first quarter1, selected the means and resources (selection of the evaluation criteria), created new material (design of the evaluation form2) and recorded the flow of activities. The second stage in the research process was the task itself and the third was the observation. Both the task phase and the observation phase spanned from September 30, 2016 until December 10, 2016 and lasted for a total of 10 weeks. At the end of each week, we completed a descriptive assessment sheet for each student (Appendix 1). In it, we tried to introduce quality dimensions of performance such as the student’s ability to communicate and collaborate, their performance readiness, their critical thinking ability, creativity and responsibility. We knew that these were elements that were difficult to be immediately understood by the teacher and for this reason we understood that a systematic observation, ascertainment, evaluation and reinforcement of the above characteristics had to be done. At the same time, our main concern was to avoid derogatory and extreme characterizations, strong disapproval and marginally negative judgments. Data on the personality of the students, which were difficult to identify or required special knowledge were not recorded. The same was true for any activities of the students outside the school. More specifically, the evaluation sheets were structured according to the criteria of receptive and productive skills. Thus, for the production and comprehension of oral speech, the following parameters were considered: content, style and critique, while respectively for the written discourse: content, structure, expression/spelling. Social activities and skills that students develop (e.g., participation in the lesson, cooperation and behavior during the lesson, consistency, organization of work) were also included. We stressed that any means of expressing the result of the assessment process was not an end in itself nor a way of prioritizing and classifying the students. From a pedagogical perspective, performance assessment techniques play a verifying and informative role for students, parents and teachers (and us as well), and should be the result of systematic and multifaceted processes of monitoring and evaluating students (Konstantinou, 2004: 115). For this reason, in each written or oral announcement of the assessment results, they 1

2

Although the quarter system in all junior high school was in effect from 2016 onwards, we decided for practical reasons to adopt the previously trimester system in order to complete a research cycle during each trimester. We based the form on an earlier version (http://www.1gympeirath.gr/sxoleio/didaskaliaekpaidefsi/2013-03-13-12-22-44).

Conducting the Research

53

should be worded in such a way that each student is informed about their abilities and their performance in general. This is because we feel that the disclosing of the results of their assessment should motivate them, so that they know if their participation in the learning processes is what is required of them or should be improved. Especially with respect to motivation, our students would develop both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, high grades and positive remarks constitute extrinsic motivation for good students. Weaker students who have acquired low grades would not be extrinsically motivated. That is where the problem lies. Descriptive assessment on the other hand does not rank students nor compares them to each other; it only helps each student compare themselves to their previous performance stages in order and assess how much they have progressed. It compares what was previously achieved and what it is achieved now. For instance, a grade of 11/20 or the remark “almost good” neither motivates weaker students nor informs them holistically. However, the following comment “Your spelling mistakes have decreased a lot since the previous quarter” not only provides essential information to students but at the same time motivates them since even the smallest effort on their part is acknowledged and reflected in the descriptive evaluation feedback. Also, during this initial phase of descriptive assessment, the descriptors were predefined and there was no room for verbal deviations. We were afraid that we might overstep the bounds and enter the personal “sphere” of the student and the family, using descriptions such as lazy, superficial, etc. We were also afraid of something else: Many times teachers, who take on a class for the first time, rely on the descriptive remarks of previous colleagues and become biased with students who has negative evaluation descriptions and through a self-fulfilling prophecy those students manifest the negativeexpected behavior. During the process, of course, we realized our own mistake. Although the feedback evaluation form was informative, it proved to be static and impersonal. Gradually, we realized the need to add or delete indicators from the form based on the students’ needs and the goals set each time. We also left a blank space for additional comments that linked their performance to any incidents, either in-school or out-of-school –a factor undeniably time-consuming yet pedagogically necessary. The implementation of the method, however, appeared to be practically feasible. Taking into account its flexibility, the problems and difficulties that arose were initially of a practical nature and were manageable.

54

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Working within this context, we presented the feedback evaluation form to both the students and their parents. We considered it extremely useful to inform the latter about the form, content and functions of this evaluation method. “It is a positive fact that the descriptive assessment note leaves no room for comparison among students, since everyone understands something different, which is recorded verbally and not numerically” (8/10/2016) we mentioned in our journal. Then and at the beginning of each week we spent the first ten minutes of teaching discussing with the students about the content of their assessment. After the end of the first cycle of reflecting on the evaluation material, we pondered the following: How flexible was the material that would enable it to adapt to the learning methods and the interests of our students? How much the material enhanced their participation and cooperation? How much the material supported the free expression and exchange of their personal experiences? How much did it promote cooperation among their family and wider social environment? How effective was it in creating a competitive classroom atmosphere? Some students, essentially confirming what we expected to hear from them, emphasized the following: “Miss, will you be grading all of this? Great, so you won’t just count the grade on our exam only!” (S33). It was obvious that the students have learned to be in school to learn, to listen passively, to be taught and then be evaluate on what they have learned from the one who taught them and not to learn and experience what they learned nor be responsible for their own learning. “Oh, it’s good that you write that I am a good child, because you teachers only say bad things about me” (S2) “I never knew that “language” could be all of that. Why didn’t they tell us all these years?” (S1) “Finally, language is not just a grade” (S7) “Wow! You will grade us for all these? Great, that way you will not focus the spelling mistakes only. As my dad says, language is not just spelling” (S25). Students seem to have begun to understand (not to the same degree of course) that through descriptive assessment the methodological problem observed in measuring and matching a psycho-emotional phenomenon to a quantitative value is now addressed descriptively, without placing it on a grading scale (Konstantinou, 2004: 125), while at the same time avoiding social comparisons arising from the hierarchical ranking of students; thus cultivating a spirit of cooperation and rivalry (Matsagouras, 1985: 77-86). Similar views were expressed by their 3

With respect to the students and their parents, it was decided that the students should be coded with the letter “S” and the parents with the letter “P,” respectively.

Conducting the Research

55

parents during the PTA meeting. Typically a mother, a teacher by profession, told us: “I completely agree with this practice. This type of interaction facilitates control by teachers and allows the development of more complex ways of communication between teachers and students (P18). But also other comments: “It gives strength to X. As you know, he has dyslexia and this practice now gives him the courage to stand on his own two feet (P3). “Well done. It was something that bothered me as a student. Finally, the student is treated as an autonomous being and not as a number (P25). In general, everyone agreed that students are not “impersonal” entities, but their image is a composite of various factors that are socially determined. It turned out, though, that this finding was not enough. “You are right, but then again do not just want students to be able to write a good essay?” (P10). Of course, some negative comments regarding a “control system” were also expressed. I had similar doubts. Does descriptive evaluation ultimately disrupt the relationship between teachers and students, as the relationship of control and power prevails over cooperation? Does it stigmatize low-achieving students as the main culprits for their failure? Does it favor the socially advantaged and wrong the socially disadvantaged? To this end, some students (possibly reproducing their parents’ arguments) emphasized that students’ behavior could not be linked to their performance in the lesson, nor does the grade in the language class depend on their performance in writing. “My mom told me that now you will grade everything. Does that mean you will control us?” (S6). “Will our grade change now?” (S5).

We explained to them that they did not have to worry. We wanted to alleviate their anxiety and focus on the lesson. After all, we had already said enough about the evaluation process. Besides, if we thought it had to change and be different, then there was no need to turn it into a major issue from the first lesson. “Ma’am, are you literally keeping a file on us?” (S11). “I really like all these revolutionary activities, miss. But to tell the truth, it feels like I am on Big brother, as my dad said” (S13). “Finally, ma’am, and now that we are doing something as revolutionary as you say, do you still care about our handwriting? My mom is right. Same thing all over again (SM16).

56

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al. “Well, ma’am, at least this new way you wouldn’t care if we behave or not. After all, what does this have to do with whether I write well? We discussed the same thing at home yesterday “(S21). “Anyway, my dad, ma’am, disagrees. He says you should not care about our behavior. Your job is to teach us how to write essays “(S24).

What was certain, however, was that despite their objections, the students were gradually free of their fear of a grade and spoke honestly. As Rock & Levin (2002: 7-21) observe, teachers who implement action research in their classrooms have the opportunity to interact with and listen to students in a context completely different from the established one. Using a wide range of data and techniques (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, written and oral assessments) can build relationships, perhaps informally, but certainly more authentic and substantial than the standard ones. This is precisely the emotional release we received even if the comments were negative. At this point, we deemed it necessary to study the degree of influence of the parents discourse on the students’ discourse. According to Koutsogiannis (2010), much of what Bernstein calls vertical discourse is involved in the horizontal discourse of practices prevailing at home, since along with the formal school curriculum an informal curriculum is developed and implemented by parents at home, which resembles many of the school practices. In other words, observing the practices developed by parents in order to integrate their children into society, it seemed that the horizontal discourse at home challenges the vertical school discourse which is an element linked to wider global developments. It was understood, then, that we had to try harder to overturn this mentality. In addition, some other student comments focused on their lack of selfaction. The reason for this discussion was a piece of writing by a student we read in class. The task was to write a paragraph about “The biggest misfortune in life is not to risk anything” Here are some student comments regarding this intervention from our journal: “Ma’am, as she said ... whoever is afraid to take risks, will never have the opportunity again to discover the value and true meaning of life.” (S3) “Ma’am, adventure. Here you go. This is what we ask for! To become teachers and to grade. We will be much fair!” (S23)

Conducting the Research

57

“Ma’am, you only explained to us what you were grading and what you were describing. You did not ask us to grade our friends. It’s not just a matter of adventure, but how do can we know that you trust us?” (S22) “Only humans have the intelligence, or something like that, to make their own choices. You agreed, madam. You have to let us make our own choices. Otherwise, how will we mature?” (S11) “Well ... I agree too, but what if Nikos with whom we had an argument grades me? What will happen then?” (S17)

The children, then, talked about risk, confidence, maturity, intelligence but also embarrassment or even fear to grade their friend. These were issues that we did not initially think would be a concern. The critical friend who attended the lesson and recorded her thoughts and opinions also agreed. “Ultimately, it is very difficult for students to free themselves of their personal likes and dislikes,” “I believe that the class should move on to something more creative.” “Descriptive evaluation has paved the way for students’ critical attitude toward evaluation practices, but we cannot stop here.”

Photo 1. Production of written speech (paragraph development).

58

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

After reflecting on all the above parameters and in cooperation with the facilitator, we decided that it would be preferable for the second cycle to move in a more emancipatory mode that would leave as much room for freedom of movement and opportunities as possible for students to take initiatives. After all, our goal was to give them the opportunity to give a reasoned account for the results of both the pedagogical and the evaluation process of the lesson. Thus, we modified our research tools and sought to create more appropriate ones, which would be more flexible and efficient for our research purposes. As the data showed, in the first phase we focused more on improving the assessment tools in the teaching process, setting aside the development of student initiatives. We realized that the students had been invited to work in a clean and organized environment with a strong goaloriented element, but then we pondered how they would collaborate, if we had given them more freedom. Unfortunately, we did not realize that the assessment process is considered authentic when the student’s ability on useful mental actions is directly examined (Wiggins, 1993). Sifting through the relevant literature, we confirmed our empirical positions that students who have developed their assessment skills were able and willing to access, interpret and use information from quality assessments in ways that confirm or promote their learning (Absolum, Flockton, Hattie, Hipkins & Reid, 2009). According to Boud (1995), each evaluation should include two interrelated actions: 1) The knowledge and understanding of the objectives and the criteria, on which the achievement of the goals for each project will be assessed, 2) The ability to make judgments about whether the project meets the criteria or not. In this context I decided to try to move to the second cycle in level: • •

co-formation of criteria with students peer evaluation

5.2.2. Cycle B Cycle A served more as an awareness-raising phase and made us ponder on ideas for new strategies of action (Altrichter & Posch & Somekh, 2001: 232). So, in collaboration with the facilitator and the critical friend, we decided to revise the initial design and focus this time on peer evaluation. We and the facilitator felt that through this approach the students could work within a more valid evaluation framework without the fear of retaliation by

Conducting the Research

59

the team being evaluated. Consequently, students would be able to proceed with self-assessment more easily and stand up for themselves both emotionally and cognitively. Thus, it could be seen that collaborative exploratory processes contribute to the formation of a critical learning community, which elaborates, experiments and evaluates not only teaching but also alternative evaluative techniques and methods while collaborative learning places knowledge in a realistic framework. We firmly believed that adopting models that focus on reflection and critical inquiry, drawing on constructivist learning theories, could turn the student into a researcher-thinker. So our main goal at this stage was to help our students realize how political, economic and social factors influence evaluation practices and, thus, be able to understand the various dimensions of the education system. Peer evaluation was carried out using a rubric with predetermined criteria because it helped students be fair and remain impartial when evaluating their classmates (Dochy et al., 2006; Hitt & Helms, 2009). We also felt that peer evaluation should move gradually from group work to individual work (Appendix 2, 3). The revised plan was implemented (action and observation) from December 10, 2016 until February 28, 2017 and lasted for about 10 weeks. •

•

During the first 5 weeks, peer evaluation centered on group work and was carried out in groups. There were times when our plans did not work out (due to lack of time), so we had to change them. Of course, this was normal and certainly not at all discouraging since teaching is not a static and predictable process but a flexible one. Besides, in the first phase our task was for the students to understand that the process of correction is not similar to the steps that must be followed when writing a text. During the following weeks, the focus was on evaluating our neighbor’s work and was carried out by each student individually.

The discussion about criteria came about when we came across a creative writing text, which we personally found appropriate for this class. However, students raised concerns regarding its quality when we read it to them (Photo 2). Even though they delineated the text’s main ideas, they were unable to evaluate it thoroughly.

60

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Photo 2. Production of written speech (journal page).

Only when we recorded all the criteria suggested by the children in the table and we started to co-formulate them together through our own metacognitive and linguistic interventions did they accept the framework (Photo 3). Of course, we were also concerned about the fact that had to explain the process and make it clear to them that we would co-decide on their course of action (weighing in their opinion as well) with a lot of effort on their part. We really wanted them to understand that the reward was their own honest judgment. We also felt that the entire process needed to be rigorously organized, comprehensible, and consistent for all students.

Conducting the Research

61

Photo 3. Students work in groups (peer evaluation).

In each case, the following phrases became the motto of the lesson (8-9 / 12/2016): “We want to help the children improve; not count the mistakes they made!” In this context, we focused on cultivating the spirit of cooperation among students. After all, peer assessment seeks to acquaint the other parties with the process, which will help them identify the strengths and weaknesses of their peers and subsequently make suggestions for their improvement (Slavin, 2007). In the diary, we wrote about the discussion regarding the collaboration (10/12/2016): “This is exactly the message we wanted to get across from the first meeting we had with them: that we are primarily interested in them feeling that they are making progress, that they can evaluate their own learning development, to say with certainty ‘yes, I took a step forward’ or ‘I had a hard time with this so I want my teacher to help me or even better my classmate to help me’. At this point, we brought up the issue of cooperation among themselves and with us. We stressed that we were there to help them and not argue with them nor punish them through the grades that we only have the right to give out. The truth is that they listened to us with curiosity, wonder and interest. You do not hear this every day, especially during the breaks we only hear threats ‘did you do that? I will take off 2 points!’ We do not know what they thought about all this, but we will insist on the issue of cooperation, because we consider it extremely important. Cooperation between them, working in teams, working together must become a permanent practice.”

62

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Table 2. Worksheet of a group oral presentation CELL PHONES IN SCHOOL!!!!

ORAL PRODUCTION (GROUP TASK) You made use of your cell phone during the lesson, and your teacher caught you and took you to the principal’s office. The principal is against the use of cell phones, while you are apparently not. Subsequently, the principal calls for a meeting of your class teachers. One group (Group A) takes on the role of the principal and five teachers while another group (Group B) takes on the role of your class representative board. After outlining the arguments for each group, act out the dialogue between the members of the two groups. You have 5 minutes to prepare your arguments and 5 to act out your role. Remember to choose classmates with a persuasive speech and dynamic voice. Also, do not forget that we look straight into the eyes of the person we want to persuade while regulating the tone of our voice.

The first group assignment we evaluated was in unit 4 “School in time” as well as an oral group presentation. In the context of a broader scenario that we had designed, we gave the students a worksheet on the subject of cell phones in school. It was essentially a “Debate” (Table 2). Among other things, we pointed out that they should employ paralinguistic features extraordinary during their oral presentations. This topic interested the students since they could draw on their personal experiences without referring to a manual to build up their arguments. Through this technique, we thought that they would exhibit a more responsible attitude and mood during the evaluation phase. During the peer assessment phase, the criteria the students employed were presentation techniques, argumentation, structure, teamwork, style, cohesion and feedback. At the same time, instructions were given for each feature (as shown in photo 4 below) so that the students could have a fuller picture of what they would be evaluating each time. Although there were

Conducting the Research

63

disagreements among the groups as well as within each group, the process ran smoothly. During the last 10 minutes of each lesson, the students completed the evaluation sheets we gave them while during the first 10 minutes of the next lesson we discussed the difficulties they encountered, the objectivity of their judgements, and their attitudes and opinions toward this new form of evaluation. “It does not matter if you had difficulties. This means that you are learning! It’s not a shame.” “Nobody experienced any difficulties? Did you read the criteria carefully?” “Come on kids, this the only way you will be able to form an opinion” “We want to see your thinking process.” These were some comments we used to make during each session because we wanted to show them that peer assessment requires a change in one’s attitude, that difficulties are part of the learning process and that mistakes and seeking help is an indicator that learning is taking place. Our students’ comments confirmed our initial concerns. “I feel like I’m ratting out my neighbor” (S3), “and what if X gets angry? This is very difficult for me. I cannot tell the truth” (S5),” “The boxes on this form are very confusing” (S8), “Now that we have to fill this out on our own… I do not know… it scares me” (S21). We reflected on this issue on our journal: “We wanted to make it clear to them that peer assessment was a completely different process which would gradually lead to their intellectual growth and progress. We always stressed the notion of individual progress, which is inextricably linked to their performance in the subject area as well as their sense of personal development, which entails taking initiatives, involvement, decision-making, taking stances on various issues” (28/12/2016). Also during the third week, we expressed a relevant concern: “This is the 3rd lesson today and the children insist that we correct their work using a red pen. Though we had told them numerous times that it does not matter, they, nonetheless, insisted. We wonder how could they ask us to go through a notebook full of notes and comments using a color that only conjures up traumatic experiences? How could we convince them that even the use of a different colored pen is part of the process? It seems difficult…” (9/1/2017). Our frustration led to disappointment when, during the fourth week of the project, a student said to us: “We are not going to have a lesson today again? Will we be filling out these forms again?” We wrote the following in our journal: “We couldn’t believe what we were hearing… They thought that last time we did not have a lesson. It seems very disappointing, because we had prepared the intervention in every detail, wanting to give enough time to the students to take the floor, intervene, and participate in the lesson. And

64

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

now they say that this was not a lesson, but some game… we tried to explain to them that it was a lesson, since they took notes, discussed issues and worked collaboratively. Not sure we were convincing though since some of them made the following comments ‘but we did not cover any grammar points’, ‘ we did not conjugate verbs’, ‘you did not correct our vocabulary’. In the end, though, it seems that everything that is innovative, everything that goes beyond what we reverently follow, is blamed…” (20/1/2017). Nevertheless, despite the students’ discouraging comments, our goal remained to help them develop the skills that would enable them to recognize the historicity of different cultural traditions and understand how languages work in their economic, political, socio-cultural and ideological contexts.

Photo 4. Peer evaluation of oral group presentation.

Conducting the Research

65

Fortunately, the results were better during the fifth week. Using approaches that not only focus on student’s ability to adapt to different situational environments (DEPPS, 2003) but also to process and interpret different kinds of discourse created in an ever-evolving technological and cultural society, the next project was a newspaper article on refugees/immigrants which the students created through their own texts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Student poetry A refugee diary page Interview of an immigrant An article on the problems they face Tracing the phenomenon of migration and asylum seeking

All groups unanimously evaluated the presentation of an excellent work (photo 5). It seems that producing quality work was the “antidote” to any disagreement. So could our goal be to have students produce quality work after all? Does this mean we need to raise the bar? We knew that an evaluation of this type necessitated familiarity with graded quality assessment items –at least, during the early stages of its implementation. As the project unfolded, and the students moved from their groups to their assessment pairs (Photo 6), we obtained some very interesting information regarding the way the assessment material shaped our students’ perception of the notion of assessment and, subsequently, enhanced their motivation in a new context.

Photo 5. Excerpts from the students’ newspaper.

66

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Photo 6. Students proceed to peer assessment in pairs.

Despite initial resistance, it became apparent that the experiential evaluation activities positively surprised the students and made them happy in the end. They seem to have come to understand that the assessment we were attempting was authentic, simply because it is the result of authentic learning; that it is a process and not just a product, because it carried out in tandem with and not independent of the learning process. Here are some of their comments: • •

• •

•

“Miss, I like it very much. I learn what is right and what is wrong, because it makes me pay attention” (S4). “I become more objective because I have to tell my classmate the truth. It may be difficult, of course, but I know that it is for her own good” (S5). “Although it requires a lot of work and attention to detail, I enjoy it more than before. At least, now we do grading” (S11). “I thought it would have been an easier process but okay. It is definitely better, because we are slowly learning the grading criteria and know what to look out for” (S14). “The truth is that we could simply say ‘good’ or ‘bad’ presentation. Why go through all this trouble? At least it’s fair since we are the ones doing the grading” (S21).

Conducting the Research

•

67

“I’m very happy, miss. Whenever I tell my classmate that he writes nonsense, he gets angry, but now that I have the grading criteria in front of me, he cannot say anything. You are protecting us. It is as if you set me free” (S25).

Respectively the parents’ comments were positive as well: •

•

•

•

“The truth is that it helped him a lot because in the beginning he was troubled by the fact that his classmate would have said that he was not cooperative at all” (P1). “I do not believe that my daughter can work systematically for 10 weeks evaluating herself. What can I say? I’m concerned, but let’s give it a try. She seems more excited now than before”(P9). “I fully agree with what you do. You provide informative feedback regarding our children’s knowledge and skills, which contributes to their self-awareness, and for me this is most important.”(P16). “Merely grading essays in the language class all these years must end.” (P20).

We felt that all the stakeholders understood that authentic evaluation reflects the knowledge and skills the student really holds and is able to use, b) provides feedback and learning incentives, c) does not simply promote students from one grade to the other but focuses on their development, d) provides challenges and motivates them and e) results in the presentation of a finished product. What they did not know though is that authentic evaluation is based on the zone proximal development, which “corresponds to the distance between the real development level of the child, as defined by independent problem-solving and the potential development level, such as this is determined by problem solving under adult guidance or in cooperation with more competent peers” (Vygotsky, 1997: 147). We therefore believed that despite the difficulties all our students would succeed in the end. Reflecting on the pedagogical benefits of student collaboration along with all the inherent problems (Allal, 2001), we realized that students had really begun to improve their language skills. “Most students began to pay attention to how to improve those points mentioned in the writing evaluation criteria. They often asked us to explain what they had to do to improve” (26/2/2017). In addition, during the 5th week, we had observed that “S1-2-34, S13-14-15-16 and S21-22-23-24 groups were discussing the evaluation criteria thoroughly each time. Dialogue, respect and democratic values

68

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

dominated each session. We must admit though that these were the diligent students. Nevertheless, the other two teams also improved dramatically from week to week” (25/1/2017). Of course, there were also some exceptions “We’re very concerned that S25-26 did not progress much during the third week. So we are thinking about placing them in another group. They are certainly not the most diligent of students and are quite indifferent to the lesson. Nevertheless, we want them to understand the importance of evaluation, not just for school but also for their lives” (10/1/2017). We knew that authentic assessment could help reduce differences between students from different backgrounds (Egan & Gardner, 1992: 397-407; Gordon & Bonilla-Bowman, 1996: 32-51; Marzano, 2002) because they delve into many linguistic interpretations and approaches, use material familiar to all and are collectively committed to joint problem solving (Gardner, 1993: 2328). That is why we insisted on their active involvement in the process of self-evaluation. Through collaborative and flexible learning, we wanted our students to steer away from divisions and classifications. The problems, however, did not end here. “They are more bothered by the recognition that someone else’s work is better than their own. They seem to be trying to look for mistakes and not highlight the positive aspects. We have to work more on this and change their attitude”, (20/1/2017) “Of course, there were laughs and comments about the selection of photos, but in a small class this can be managed quite well. On the other hand, we believe that it is in the nature of children to seek ways to create down time during a lesson. It depends on the meaning they give to the concept of ‘evaluation’.” The results were more encouraging during week 6 “Finally, we changed groups S25-26. Things got better now that they worked in another team. When students have to carry out a cognitively demanding activity collaboratively, they are more focused and put in a greater effort” (1/2/2017). According to the critical friend, “Overall, the children collaborated, but there were also moments of intense disagreement and reflection that are considered good omens of communication. Disagreement is a communication principle, which yields positive and productive results. After all, disagreement is always better than indifference!” These remarks were quite encouraging. In our journal, we noted the following “As our society progresses from the heavy industrial phase to the phase of high technology and information technology, people should possess the highest level of cognitive and social skills as well as strategies that will enable them to communicate and collaborate with others. This, however, presupposes (among other things) that the individual is able to analyze and process

Conducting the Research

69

multifaceted information within a broader collaborative framework” (24/2/2017). All these concerns resulted in our intervening in the conflicts between students and acting as “peacemakers.” At the same time, the parents’ responses to the possibility of extending the research project to self-evaluation are quite revealing: “I wonder what it would be like if they evaluated themselves. To tell you the truth, my son feels his work is perfect” (P1). “What would you say if you tried to evaluate their work? Do you think they are ready now?” (P6). “I am interested in him knowing where he stands and how he assesses his work” (P17). “I think you should proceed with self-assessment. In times of crisis and unemployment, they need to know where their limits end” (P23).

However, some parents, although recognizing the importance of the project, beginning with firm undisputed structures regarding the role of the teacher and the content of the evaluation, took a relatively controversial approach: “I agree that you are making a great effort and all this is innovative. But ... It seems to me that it is just one of the same: nice words. The essence is the teacher in practice” (P2). “I do not believe that anything will change. The entire system in Greece is based on teachers’ evaluating students. We went through this process” (P5). “It bothers me a lot because you seem to deflect the responsibility to the children. Are they mature enough to make choices?” (P7). “If you let the children evaluate themselves, you compromise your role, your prestige as well as you reason for being in the classroom, while they will do whatever they want at home” (P13). This was quite disturbing: is our existence justified solely through our official right to give out grades? “And what will you do while the children are grading their work? Sit around? Great! So the kids will be doing your job?” (P21).

The above statements made us reassess the parents’ expectations and subsequently formed the guidelines for the planning of the last cycle of the project.

70

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

5.2.3. Cycle C The improvement in the students’ perception of the functionality and content of the assessment process paved the way toward self-assessment. In our journal, we noted the following: “Our wish is for students to understand that independence is an interactive process and that its development will depend on the changes in practice regarding assessment not only on the teacher’s end but also on their own” (25/2/2017). Of course, we knew that self-evaluation is a process that primarily involves the evaluator “But self-evaluation requires superior mental skills and this is what we need when we talk about our own evaluation. Before we ask children, we must first do it and have an internal, hard battle with ourselves…” (26/2/2017). A key principle, therefore, was the fact that children learn best in a receptive and student-centered environment that encourages research and independence, includes a variety of materials and connects school experiences to the wider world. After all, an environment with a variety of means and alternative ways of working can motivate every student (Dörnyei, 2001; Koutselini, 2008). We know from previous research that during the process of creating the rubric, students should be asked to brainstorm criteria for evaluating their own work (Andrade, 2005; Piscitello, 2001; Toth et al., 2002). This way, they would more willing to participate in the evaluation process because they would know what they are doing and why. At the same time, similar studies by Andrade (1999), Boud & Falchikov (2006), Falchikov (2007) and Piscitello (2001) underscored the importance of the transition from peer evaluation to self-evaluation. Specifically, they asserted that students acquire and use the assessment criteria creatively when they participate in its creation and therefore show greater agreement in selfassessment, when the peer assessment they receive from the teacher or from their classmates has preceded. However, this time our concern was about the design of the rubric, as we knew that in order for the results to be valid, the rubrics must be applied many times throughout the lesson, throughout the school year, and unfortunately, this was not possible (Kontogiannis, 2003). We firmly believe that self-assessment forms are not merely a means of assessment and a teaching tool, but can also contribute to changing attitudes and perceptions, which is, perhaps, the most important aspect of its implementation in the education system. Teachers who adopt it, have already developed a philosophy of acceptance, respect, understanding, but also a firm belief in the value of the student as an individual. Consequently, they are not the ones who would merely impart their knowledge on the students,

Conducting the Research

71

but the ones who believe that the student is at school, mainly to learn through discovery (and not merely be tested and graded on numerical scales) and develop social skills. At the same time, students who are encouraged to assess their own performance are called upon to challenge and gradually alter deeply ingrained predispositions of learning. We shared these concerns with both the external researcher-facilitator and the critical friend. We reflected on this exchange in our journal: “There have been cases where we made an effort to convince our students that there is another perspective which they should also consider (from the simplest, such as correcting with ink of a color other than the traditional red to other more complex issues, such as, disassociating self-assessment from grading, producing descriptive assessment notes, students grading exams themselves etc.). We have linked self-assessment to personal improvement and empowerment and try to experience it as a process aimed at improvement and professional development” (25/2/2017). After a discussion between us, it was decided that, on the one hand, selfevaluation would work in tandem with our own evaluation and, on the other hand, our goal was to strengthen the students’ positive attitude toward evaluation along with their critical empowerment and not merely check the validity of the rubric. After all, the corresponding literature emphasizes that self-evaluation should not function as the only means of evaluation (Chapman & Inman, 2009). In any case, our constant goal remained to help our students determine whether there is a discrepancy between the “acquired” knowledge and the “required” knowledge, relying on their own judgment, their classmates’ and mine. This process would allow them to see themselves with respect to the object of learning, the Greek language, but also to position themselves in the social whole of the classroom. Based on the report of the two previous cycles, we began the third cycle on March 1, which led to the new revised action plan. According to the schedule, we had planned to finish it on May 10. However, during the discussion of the first lesson of this new cycle, new data emerged: the students strongly expressed the desire to be even more actively involved in their evaluation, even choosing their own evaluation criteria. We reflected on the manner we approached self-assessment in our journal: “…we told them what really matters is for them to form their own opinion of their progress so far (something that we would also take into account), which, in turn, would also benefit them in the long run. We wanted to hear their views on an issue as completely personal as self-evaluation. They told us that they themselves could not evaluate themselves because it would have been difficult for them

72

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

to give themselves a low grade. We then explained to them that selfevaluation does not necessarily mean assigning oneself a grade. It means that one is able to reflect on their progress and describe it verbally, not quantitatively. Grades have been erroneously linked to the evaluation process. There are other non-quantitative ways to assess something. We tried to show them that self-evaluation is a purely personal process, which leads to self-improvement and self-development. When people evaluate their actions (in this case their learning), they gain self-confidence and become responsible citizens. This is how a way of life is cultivated: we assume responsibility for something that concerns us without depending on an ‘outside observer’ to step in. We also emphasized that regardless of how old we are, learning is meaningful only when we pursue it voluntarily. Therefore, it is up to us to determine the extent to which we have learned something. Teachers can help us by making judgments and expressing their point of view, provided, of course, that we are content with the subject of our study and evaluate our learning progress…” (2/3/3017).

Photo 7. Students work individually.

Therefore, considering all the above (i.e., the students’ desire to try new things, the parents’ feedback, and our personal aspirations), we drafted a new proposal for this leg of the project. Our goal was for the descriptors to be comprehensible and succinct (so that the students would not be discouraged by their length) and in accordance with the applicable guidelines for the evaluation of literary courses. We worked productively within a framework

Conducting the Research

73

of their gradual disengagement from the given evaluative frameworks following the natural course of language acquisition, from oral to written. So, we started with a list of general criteria for the production of oral speech from which students had to choose the most appropriate ones depending on the topic (Table 3). Thus, the design of the criteria started in collaboration with the students. The difficult point in their design was that each pupil focused on their ‘strengths’ and reduced the importance of their ‘weak points.’ We had to show them that it was necessary to be strict with themselves. Table 3. Criteria for the evaluation of oral presentations Organisation and content • Did they start with a friendly and accurate introduction showing the purpose and process of the presentation? • Did they define the topic of their work, the time and resources they had? • Did they make clear links between objectives, methodology, data collection and analysis? • They delimited the value of their findings. • Did they make recommendations for further action? • Have they used the right technical terms in a correct context in order to make them understandable? • Have they recognized the assistance of other actors/supporters of the project? • Did they make a proper bibliographical report avoiding plagiarism? • How innovative or original was the content of the survey presented? • How well did they work as a team during the presentation? Presentation techniques • Did they maintain the flow of speech at a natural rate? • Have they used a variety of appropriate presentation structures (questions to the public, tables, graphs, photos, slides etc.)? • Have they used the slides appropriately (with phrases not sentences or extensive texts)? • Did they give the public the opportunity to understand the content (avoiding grammatical or verbal errors)? • Did they keep the public interest alive? • Did they have visual contact with all participants (and not just those in the first row)? • Did they have self-control over their posture and gestures? • Were their attention and body focused on the public and not on their notes, on the screen or on the computer? • Were they communicative and maintained oral or written interaction to trigger a positive response from the public? • Did they positively assess the response from the public by answering questions, repeating/paraphrasing points that might have been unclear?

74

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

Table 4. In the time of Heron (written) You live during Heron’s time. You go to the temple and you are in front of one of Heron’s technological achievements (a coin holder that will give you holy water, opening doors). In an internal monologue, you record: a) thoughts about the level of the technology of the time and b) emotions (e.g. surprise) about the achievement you see (150 words). M1: It was a spring morning when I decided to visit the temple. It was time to give honor to God and receive holy water. After I prayed, I went to the coin holder, which was in front of the temple to get the holy water. I’ve never seen the coin holder before. It was a machine on which pilgrims would throw a coin on the edge of a lever. So, it lifted the other end of the lever and opened the valve. From this valve, the amount of holy water that sprung out was proportional to the weight of the coin. Then the coin fell into a piggy bank, so the lever returned to its original position, closing the valve. It was something else! Brilliant construction and I dare say original! Although only holy water sprung out, it radiated a sense of splendor and triumphant superiority. I was standing in front of it feeling surprised, admiration and wonder thinking about the great and resourceful mind, which invented it! I was proud of the achievements of my people, which, although not big in this case, is an important part of everyday life. I think it is a technology that never fades, never declines, but evolves over time. M4: The other day I visited Heron’s temple. On my way in, the doors opened automatically! I was surprised, since I had never noticed the level of our technology and how modernized it has been. I haven’t been to the temple in a while, so I don’t know exactly when the mechanism was installed. But this Heron must be a genius! Apparently, we must have evolved a lot technologically. When I first saw it, of course, I was scared at first. I didn’t know it was possible for the doors to open themselves. I thought maybe they were blessed by the gods or something. Then, after I recovered from the trembling, I thought that perhaps the priests had hired a special craftsman, inventor or scientist to build them, especially for the temple, to honor the gods. Then I felt awe and admiration for this wonderful project. After examining them well, I walked into the temple to get some holy water. M7: When last week I went to the temple and wanted to get holy water, I didn’t know where to find it because no one was there. The solution came when I saw in front of me a strange machine that gave me instructions on how I could have a bottle of holy water. It was a coin holder, as I heard Heron invented. What kind of brain this man might have had to think of something like that! And the good thing is that the means and the level of technology of the time allowed him to make his dream and his so advanced thought a reality. A machine that, when you put coins on it, gives you a bottle full of holy water. I can’t hide my big surprise for this achievement. It is a very great desire to see Heron in person and to express my warm congratulations and great admiration for this original invention. M15: When my mom told me to go to church, I got angry because it was 7 am and the church service began at 8:30 am. When we arrived, the priest told us to wait because it was still too early, but if we want to get some holy water before a lot of people come. Mom gave me coins and told me to get two bottles. I put the coins in, and after two minutes, the bottle was full. I froze for a few seconds. Then I called my mom so she could see it with her own eyes, but she didn’t believe it either. The priest was smiling. He said it’s a new invention from Heron. I went to open it to see how it works, but the priest stopped smiling and looked at me angrily. He said he understands that it’s impressive and dazzling, but it’s also sensitive. The thoughts that had crossed my mind were countless. I was thinking, how unlucky were other peoples who did not have such a mechanism and that we no longer lack anything in the world. I was frozen.

Conducting the Research

75

We trailed along the same path even in the written discourse. In the first attempt, we ‘married’ the peer evaluation to self-assessment in order to make the transition smoother. In particular, the students individually assessed the work of the person next to them, then their own and in the end they compared their work (Photo 7). However, the result was not as optimistic as we expected. We felt that after their previous period of engagement with peer evaluation, they were ready to move to self-assessment. For example, we present 4 essays (with the same prompt) which the students wrote on “Living contemporary social problems”. As they declared almost unanimously that a large part of modern problems are driven by technology, we first looked at the technology of the past and the achievements of antiquity. In the context of this debate, we have asked them to write texts around 150 words on a similar subject. The M1 and M7 texts are from two excellent students (GPA: 18 8/12 out of 20) while the M7 and M15 texts are from two moderate students (GPA: 17 1/12 out of 20). Thus, following our initial programming, the students began to evaluate the work of the next person after writing their texts. We gave them again a list of basic written criteria and asked them to choose and check, without documenting, what they considered they should be covering in each text. We thought that with this strategy there would be less divergence between them. However, the evidence showed that students, regardless of their school performance, were immature to judge — at least yet — the completeness of the written criteria: they were quite strict judges when they were going to evaluate the work of their peers, but rather lenient on themselves. Unfortunately, it was something we rather expected but did not want to admit. Of course, “good” students had also assessed more “thin” aspects/parameters of the written language produced (Table 5). There was some hope. But our class wasn’t an elitist class and that troubled us a lot. How would they manage to become objective judges? How would we reach our goal? However, although there were both collaboration difficulties and internal tensions, the design of the criteria was completed in two session. In order to help the students, we relied again on previous self-assessment sheets and revised them accordingly. The students evaluated a total of five written unimodal and multimodal written texts and expressed their positive support: After all this time, it’s easier for me now to give me a bad grade. I think that’s good for me” (M1).

76

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al. The truth is, sometimes I used to lie and put an A.M. in all the boxes, but in the end, I felt ashamed.

Table 5. Evaluative parameters of the text produced (Results of other- and this evaluation) Students Criteria Coverage of the topic Communication objective of the text Organisation of text Consistency and consistency of speech Vocabulary Grammar and syntax Suitability of vocabulary and grammar structures Spelling Punctuation

M1 Peer— √

Self— √

M4 Peer— √

Self— √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √

√

√ √ √

M7 Peer— √

√ √

√

√

Self— √

M15 Peer— √

Self— √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

Most parents have been positive throughout the third phase, focusing on the importance of self-energy and self-awareness in their children: “K suddenly became more independent” (C7). “S has now set higher goals for herself”(C14). Do you know how selfish F was? Now he’s starting to feel safer to make mistakes. Thank you”(C16). “At least now when he doesn’t write a good essay, he knows it” (C17). “At first I was skeptical, but I guess it helped the kids mostly this phase. As if they became more responsible for their learning” (C20). “We may not have succeeded, but our children for the first time are actively involved in the learning process” (C22).

However, parents who had stood against the whole project from the outset remained trapped in their airtight perceptions. “At this stage too, we did not achieve anything” (M3). They also developed concerns about the

Conducting the Research

77

fragmentation of the project and the grade-grubbing attitude which certainly weakened (if not negated) any innovative effort. “It was a nice experience but I think it’s not enough for a lesson” (C5). “The aim is for the whole school to be like this. Next year they’ll forget it (C7). “What can I tell you... you gave him 14/20 before, you gave him 14/20 now. After everything you did nothing changed” (C18). What you did is useless. Once again, your grade counts in the forth marking period (C21).

At the end of the 3rd period, however, the critical friend showed her appreciation to the entire effort: “They managed, ultimately, to carry out all 8 self-assessment activities undertaken by a fact which shows that the initial goal of creating students able to think and reflect and cooperate, so that they can develop an active attitude in school but also in the future and in the wider socio-political process.” However, she observed “students 12, 15, 21, 25 remained the well -known troublemakers. I don’t think you’ve been able to actively engage them.”

Summarizing in turn the results of this period as well as the comments of all those involved “We believe that now most of our students are largely in a position to see if there is a discrepancy between the knowledge acquired and what is required, relying both on their own judgment and on the judgment of their classmates, but also on our own. We want to believe that we managed to help them see themselves in relation to the subject of learning, but also to place themselves in the class society as a whole. […] It may be an exaggeration, but we think that several of our students have started to acquire internal learning motives, which prompt them to voluntarily acquire knowledge, which is, after all, one of the demands of my research. We didn’t expect that we would eventually have the opportunity to assess ourselves, to wonder about the course of knowledge acquisition with respect to the learning goals we had originally set. We constantly redefine our role in the classroom. We don’t know if that’s good, of course, but we’re definitely changing” (journal 12-20/5/2017).

78

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

5.2.4. Action Assessment According to Cohen & Manion (2000: 277-278), during the evaluation phase, errors, problems, weaknesses and omissions are examined. It may then be followed by a review, in which the results of the program are examined, and proposals as well as decisions on the procedures for disseminating the results to interested members are made. First of all, it is important to underline that what has been presented so far refers purely to the evaluation part of the intervention that took place. An alternative teaching approach was the basis for alternative assessment, whose goal was the authentic assessment of the student. Within this framework, many activities were carried out throughout the entire course. These included additional informal discussions among fellow teachers, students, parents, the school principal in order to discuss progress and problems and to exchange information. In this respect, the survey ended with a) an interview with the students, b) a meeting with the parents, c) a meeting of the teachers’ association, d) a discussion with the critical friend, e) a discussion with the facilitator, f) reflection (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Course of reflection of action.

We were aware that when a teacher interviews a student, the interdependence of both parties might cause problems, because the teacher and the students do not just develop a relationship during the interview but have already developed different attitudes towards each other. For this reason, the interviews were carried out in a positive and pleasant context. We noted the following in our journal (29/5/2017) “...today when the schools are closing, the children brought various sweets that they made themselves. We ate the candy, we were having

Conducting the Research

79

fun, and then we asked them to participate in the little interviews we planned. The framework was ideal: we felt very comfortable and the whole scene abstained from the familiar image of the teacher, teaching the lesson, examining the students and giving out grades. What we received was how much fun they had and how much they enjoyed it. Their smile showed us how they enjoyed the process. Many times throughout the year, they confided in us on various personal issues, asked for our opinion, and treated us as close friends and as their own... That’s exactly what we wanted to do with the kids: to have fun in class, to learn why they’re being assessed and to see me more as a counselor and less as a teacher who, with the threat of a grade, will force them to study.

The parents also generally had the same impressions (3/6/2017): “The children’s participation in your research helped them see life from another better and clearly superior perspective” (C16). “Children began to develop internal motivation” (C21). “At first I was negative and I thought you were experimenting with our children, but now all these months after I realized that you managed to increase their self-esteem and make them more positive in the concept of evaluation” (C4). “I didn’t expect it, but now I think you did something. You taught them how to know themselves”(C11). Regarding our view, we noted the following in our journal (3/6/2017): “We believe that the fact that we involved parents, although at first we were cautious about it, helped them visually understand both our demands and the lesson’s, gradually removed them from suspicions of bias against us, prompted them to discuss their children’s performance with us rather than how we graded them and finally, improved their communication and their relationship with us.”

At the same time, as shown in the teachers’ comments during the last school meeting (28/5/2017), where they were informed about the overall results, the action research was considered by most of them as a training program, which enabled them to enrich their theoretical background, renew their knowledge and ideas and delve into a new subject. One colleague stated “The fact that in previous meetings the discussion focused on issues of teaching and evaluation, its core was the exchange of “good practices” and I liked that very much. The dialogue on the strategies you have

80

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al. adopted and the experiences you have gained have always been constructive and have given me, at least, a call for reflection and further improvement.”

In the same vein, another colleague added, “Without the mood of bad criticism and without a skeptical and negative attitude, discussions evolved, which have been useful and effective for all. I didn’t expect you to do so well.”

It is clear that a training program involves, in principle, the entire staff of the school unit. There is a commitment to create a common professional culture, which can then lead to a common understanding of things, but also to the establishment of common objectives. This way, the promotion of professional change can be made easier. Moving accordingly, the principal added “The majority sees this as a form of evaluation that will have negative consequences or that will not work reflectively, but only repressively. The climate shaped today shows exactly the opposite: we are all discussing together, highlighting positive and negative points and thinking about how to use interventions in favor of the common goal, which is to improve children’s learning.”

We commented on this in our journal (28/6/2017): “A joint commitment was something we have constantly sought, already from our first meetings with our colleagues. The topic of authentic evaluation, which was partly known, became the subject of dialogue as well as a multi-approach springboard. Our purpose was not to convince them of its usefulness, but to find out together that our goal is to improve students’ learning as well as self-improvement. If we accept that we all embrace a common goal and commit to achieve it, then there is sympathy and collective effort which can bring about great results.”

By reviewing the topic of cooperation with the critical friend, we came to the assumption that students develop when they operate within a supportive framework of cooperation with their classmates and when they act not as units but as a team. The introduction of innovations, the testing of

Conducting the Research

81

alternative evaluative and teaching approaches and experimentation can be successful and guarantee the improvement of the students involved, when governed by principles of cooperation and mutual support. Our critical friend pointed out: “the greatest contribution of research to students I believe is the fact that they learned to complete and ‘compile’ the data and information of their work but also to reshape them, and this is something that clearly needs critical thinking.” During another meeting she added: “personal development means, first and foremost, the development of consciousness, not only of logic, but also the unconscious in its full range, from the nearest to the surface subconscious, to the higher, the spiritual or metaphysical. It is understandable, therefore, that at this level the reference to personal development is abused, because it is no longer an individual and interpersonal consciousness, but also a super personal and secular consciousness. And in this context, I believe the investigation has been initiated. Because world consciousness is required to objectively evaluate the person next to you.” We quote a phrase from our journal that confirms all the above considerations (2/6/2017): “...within a bureaucratic and completely centralized framework, we were fortunate to cooperate this year with an excellent colleague.”

During the meeting with the facilitator, the discussion revolved around the possibility of overthrowing existing structures. What transpired from this discussion is that the attitudes of adults do not change, except through critical reflection. However, all these in-depth discussions with those involved could lead to reflection. Taking into account the comments of all the parties involved, but also reflecting on the benefits we gained from the action, we noted the following in our journal (1/6/2017): “The whole action was ultimately a useful tool to improve our communication with both our students and their parents, as it offered us the opportunity to inform them of the objectives against which we will assess the student performance in order to avoid misunderstandings and ambiguities. We did not expect our colleagues’ comments to ‘improve our lesson’ but the discussion with them gave us perspectives on reflection and helped us think about certain things differently. We did not expect colleagues to accept or reject the original evaluation, but to

82

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al. take part in the debate, to present their views, to share ideas and suggestions. This is what we sought in the first place, to have an initial awareness of what ‘researching our work’ means by reflecting on our current practices.”

In the following journal excerpt, we provide a snippet of the selfcriticism we carried out at the end of each evaluation intervention (2/6/2017): the constant self-criticism that we had to do this year, the constant confrontation with ourselves, has become a way of life, experience, obsession. How hard it is sometimes! We often tell children to compare themselves only to their old self and to record the steps — even the smallest and perhaps the smallest ones that seem insignificant — of their progress. We’re going to have to do the same: compare ourselves to our old self before we begin the investigation, before we start reading and before we get involved in this process. Now that we’re at the heart of the research process and gained more experience, have we really changed our practices and strategies? How is the attitude we have developed in relation to the past? Have we improved? Have we gotten a little better? That, perhaps, is the point for us this year: We’re going to have to find a balance, which means that our students should change, but we should be more effective and more confident about our work. After all, this confrontation with ourselves is the hardest part and it’ll torture us to the end. Perhaps, even during an evaluation process that pushes the notion of self-assessment and involves the person being evaluated, this assumption of self-assessment is also the hardest or darkest point. How will the evaluators be able to become a valid, reliable and true judge of themselves? Is there a problem when factors such as hierarchical development and salary raise are involved? This is a matter of great concern to all of us. However, if self-evaluations of each teacher are documented through evidence and documents linking the progress of their students to their own professional development, then, obviously, there can be no question of bias.

An additional element, however, arose as a matter of concern that we had not expected. The end of the project coincided with the end of the school year. Written final exams dominated the discussions among colleagues during the breaks: filing of the grades for the second marking term, choosing the topics to be examined, preparing the final exams. This unjustified

Conducting the Research

83

insistence on the quantification of student performance was commented upon (30/5/2017) “... there is a strong concern among colleagues, once again, on the issue of student promotion. Because they fear failure, they make an effort to gain the favor of teachers and to change their grades for the better. One has to wonder: is there anything really pedagogical about such behaviors? Are children, in fact, mobilised because they are afraid of something, and do we consider that positive? Can’t we get their voluntary participation? And despite their intimidation, all the students will eventually pass. We all know that well. Yet there is a major contradiction: there is the fear of failure and rejection that pushes some students to put in extra effort during the last four months, mainly for social and psychological reasons. But eventually, everyone will pass, despite our own low grades and intimidation. So we invalidate our words and our credibility through our own actions, and so we lose the game. In the end, what S3 told me rings more true than ever: “You see, despite all the revolutionary means you used, I passed in the end.”

Reflecting on this point we were faced with new concerns: (10/6/2017) “Could the simplification and adaptability of the criteria to the students’ level stifle their creativity?” (18/06/2017) “we fear that we have curtailed our students’ imagination and made them feel limited and obliged to move within the prescribed boundaries of the evaluation criteria. They have not dared to propose any innovative ideas due to the fear of deviation from these criteria. Perhaps we should have stressed that these criteria serve as mere prompts to be further developed.”

Thus, we were called to critically assess the change that had been introduced at this stage. We subsequently realized that it concerned us as well on both a professional and personal level. These concerns were echoed in the literature as well. Relying on Fullan’s work (2003: 45-48? 1991: 91), Robson (2007: 261) compiled a list of assumptions for those who wish to introduce changes: •

We should not take for granted that our version of change is the most correct one. We need to share and compare our version through interaction with other stakeholders’ views.

84

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

• • •

• •

•

Change entails doubt, moodiness and uncertainty about its meaning. Effective implementation is a process of clarification. Conflicts and disagreements are not only inevitable but also fundamental to change. People need pressure to change, but this can only be effective under conditions that allow them to react and interact. Resocialisation is at the heart of change. Effective change takes time. This is a development process that requires at least two years of study and follow-up. The lack of application is not necessarily attributed to rejection or resistance. There are many other reasons, including insufficient financial resources or a lack of time. We cannot wait for everyone or most of people to change. Progress will be made by increasing the number of people affected.

Indeed, throughout the research project, we have constantly seen the degree of difficulty involved in attempting to introduce changes. (8/11/2016) “First we need to be convinced as teachers and then persuade our students and their parents to adopt an innovative teaching and learning model that expands our roles and our students’ roles..., (2/6/2017) “It seems to be a difficult project, mainly because it goes against perceptions already shaped for years that certainly do not change in 1-2 lessons.”

Authentic evaluation entered the classroom and was slowly implemented. However, the daily educational reality, which is governed by rules and regulations, stipulated an evaluation process that is institutionally instated and must be followed by all teachers. Therefore, there was a contradiction from the very outset of the project. On the one hand, students used authentic assessment based on specific criteria to assess their development (at least in the last two phases of the research). On the other hand though, in all other subjects the evaluation process was the instated traditional one. Furthermore, despite the introduction and implementation of the authentic assessment in the language class, the prescribed evaluation procedure had to be followed in the end. The following extract illustrates our agony regarding the outcome of the project (3/6/2017): “However, listening to our students telling us:

Conducting the Research ‘when are we going to have a real lesson?’, ‘you are not using a red pen to correct our mistakes’, we knew that we had to put in a greater effort to persuade them to see another aspect of reality. But how were we supposed to do that? How were we supposed to go against the entire system? When another colleague comes in the next hour and uses grades as a means of intimidation? Is personal development through self-assessment ultimately a utopia for our system? Is it impossible for the students to assume responsibility for their progress when the system is such that it forces them to memorize?

85

Chapter 6

Findings and Suggestions In the present research, the steps followed were those indicated in the bibliography for the implementation of each action research. Initially, the problem was identified and actions were designed and implemented in order to thoroughly determine its dimensions (i.e., investigate the attitudes and views of students and their parents on the current evaluation of Modern Greek). Based on the above, actions were developed. These actions were evaluated through reflection and constructive dialogue with the facilitator and the critical friend. Throughout the entire intervention, they were constantly being redesigned. In the end, qualitative data were collected for the final evaluation of the action (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The spiral process of action research.

The first qualitative characteristic of the research was participation (as a teacher and researcher we actively participated in the selection of the method, the design, implementation and evaluation of the intervention). The critical friend also participated dynamically, while the school principal and fellow teachers were involved. Finally, parents took part in the process in an

88

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

indirect way and determined the course of the actions. Other characteristics were functionality (the proposal is directly applicable), flexibility and adaptability (the teacher-researcher had the ability to change the rubrics of the evaluation including the information form addressed to parents). A final characteristic was collaboration, which entailed collaboration with parents and students, through discussions, exchange of ideas and expression of views and alternative solutions. Additionally, the involvement of the critical friend and ourselves in the research process (which guaranteed a more authentic analysis of the educational reality) as well as the production of educational theory (by dealing with practical educational issues) could be considered as advantages. It proved to be a training process for all of us: (10/6/2017) “... our contact was constructive and functional”, because it was not confined within a theoretical context. The discussion focused on issues of teaching and evaluation, but its core was the exchange of “good practices”. The dialogue on the strategies followed and the experiences gained was always constructive and provided opportunities for reflection and further improvement. Without any intention for negative judgement and any skeptical and negative attitude, discussions took place, which were useful and effective for everyone.”

Furthermore, the indirect involvement of the school principal and fellow teachers enriched in many ways the pedagogical principles and teaching practices of the research. The main axes of observation and reflection that were developed by the teacher-researcher during the research were the use of the material by the students and its evaluation in regards to its objectives. The main points of reflection that developed were the participation and interest of the students in the material, the cooperation between them, their relationship with the researcher and the satisfaction of the latter from the use of the material. In addition to the aforementioned, was the fulfilment of the teaching objectives, the obstacles in the application of the material and the ways of overcoming them. The analysis of the comparative evaluations of the students indicates that the action was perceived by all as significantly different from any other previous evaluation experience. More than half the students described it as “better” than all the others, “excellent,” “provocative,” “original,” “an intervention with results.” There were also statements such as “my mom’s

Findings and Suggestions

89

expectations were exceeded,” and expressed the desire “to happen again,” “to be repeated,” “to continue,” “we want more,” “If you continue do not forget us Mrs.” “Mrs., will you take us next year?” The development of action research for each participating student had its own characteristics, which were determined by parameters such as their school performance, their character, the influence from home, etc. Nevertheless, between the action research cycles, a concern was developed regarding the impact the characteristics of the material had on students. Specifically, from the study of the differences in the evaluation during the first, second and third cycle, our initial hypotheses were verified. In fact, the reliability of the findings was tested in various ways: the views of the participants were recorded, the supported evidence was presented, crossreferenced and compared in parallel with the interpretive effort. Thus, it was found that on a cognitive level the attitude of the students during the “reading” of the evaluation criteria from one cycle of action to the other, differed positively from each other. In other words, from their superficial, diagonal reading the students passed on to the critical reading and in their cognitive deconstruction. In addition, the transition from peer evaluation to self-evaluation was, as it turned out, generally successful. As a whole, the students gradually freed themselves from emotional inhibitions and moral doubts and stood with relative sincerity by their writing. At the same time, they were gradually liberated for the most part, from restrictive perceptions, they greatly revised their views and largely formed new value models; thus, approaching another aspect in which school functions as a place of creative thinking. Finally, they all developed their self-awareness and became the focus of the evaluation process. In this context, they gave space and time to their thoughts and feelings, reflected on their behavior and cooperated. The collaboration, in fact, activated relationships and attitudes, turning the department into a collaborative group that did not wait for our satisfaction to evaluate itself objectively. Of course, the very nature of the present study may raise objections from ardent proponents of the positivist, empirical-analytical example in the field of social sciences as far as the limited possibilities for generalizing and comparing its results are concerned (Cohen et al., 2008). It should be noted, however, that the reflective rationalism upon which action research is founded, is based on the assumption that complex practical problems, such as student assessment, require specialized and even individualized solutions, which can only be developed within the environment in which problems

90

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

arise and where the crucial and decisive element is the struggling teacher (Koutselini, 2008a; Loizidou & Koutselini, 2007). At the same time, conducting this research was not a linear daily process, as situations often arose that required immediate intervention and further initiatives. Another limitation of the present research (inherent in its very existence) is the dual roles we assumed: researcher-educators and participants in the research process. Considering that every observation and study of phenomena is influenced by background, perceptions, expectations, attitudes, previous knowledge and other elements that concern the researcher, the objectivity of the intake, recording and interpretation of everything that took place could be questioned (Willing, 2008). But as Roussopoulos and Tsigra (2010) point out, the world and its representation are structured collectively, in the context of a society of interacting subjects seeking to know and understand their world, define the limits of their actions within it and possibly change it. Thus, in the case of this research as well, the new knowledge produced is the result of our interaction with the students as teacher-researchers, their parents, our colleagues, the school principal, the critical friend and the facilitator. Through this relationship, multiple and different representations of the world were formed, illuminating what was taking place daily in class, during the evaluation of the students in the Modern Greek. In addition, the difficulty was the fact that we had no previous experience in action research and keeping a journal. A variety of questions needed to be answered at the beginning and these guided our actions significantly. Out of everything that happened every day, what was worth recording? At what time could the recording be made? How could the data logged in the journals be systematized, analysed and finally interpreted, in order to identify the issue that concerned me, make assumptions about the causes and propose solutions accordingly? But how could we confirm through the journal entries if the solutions we proposed would work or need to be redesigned? Along with these questions which are related to specific research knowledge and skills in data collection and analysis, questions were also asked that were particularly relevant to the potential difficulties that arise when educational practices are being critically reviewed and new ways of working are proposed and tested. The following questions could be mentioned as examples: How do teachers reflect on their practice? A practice that does not work? A result that is not achieved? We also knew that, according to research, when teachers find solutions to a problem, it is

Findings and Suggestions

91

doubtful they will ask about it again (Day, 1985); a fact that worried us as if all our efforts would be put in writing a text. It was also important that the facilitator did not act as an “expert,” in order to prevent her from imposing meanings and practices on us, even unwittingly. Naturally, we often waited for instructions and guidance from her on issues that troubled us and/or were not desirable. What was needed, in essence, was a balance between support and guidance in order to ensure the equal participation of all those involved in defining and solving problems. The effort to achieve this was made in two ways: Firstly, during our meetings, questions were used to help clarify a situation or the thoughts and feelings around it, justify assumptions about the causes of the situation and make proposals for resolving it. Within this context, the questions she posed were: “What do you think is happening?”, “Why do you consider what is happening a problem?”, “Why do you say that?”, “Can you give me an example?”, “What else do you think could be responsible for what is bothering you?”, “What do you think you could do to overcome this?” Furthermore, students had not developed their collaborative skills especially when teachers are involved - and critical thinking, nor were they familiar with similar teaching practices. In support of this, at least initially, their distrust towards the research and its aim to modify their behavior, was identified, as was their difficulty to critically examine phenomena in the context of active learning and evaluation. At the same time, as it turned out, some of them, who come from socially distorted family structures and have their own linguistic practices, challenged (sometimes even ostentatiously) our efforts by causing conflicts in the classroom. These concerns provided us with many opportunities to shift our strategy regarding the issue of conflict among children, from verbally intervening in their evaluation to involving ourselves in their play by participating. In conclusion, despite the overall positive reviews of most of the students, their parents, the school management and some teachers of this school unit, as well the fact that we overcame the rigidity of the existing educational structures to a relatively satisfactory degree, we were unable to overturn the current evaluation practices. The clearly asymmetric power relations in school education, confined our venture within the school and departmental context; thus preventing it from contributing to a more general change in school reality. Consequently, our attempt to contribute to the formation of a pedagogy that challenges the current socio-political and educational development and aims at its dynamic transformation, was

92

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

limited to an experimental level. The following comment in our journal is quite indicative (3/6/2017): Being in a specific context (as defined by the relevant legislation), teachers do not have different options and this is completely logical, since they can in no way oppose what is institutionally defined. However, the main concern is the issue of entrenched attitudes and perceptions that seem to be an obstacle to the introduction of innovation and change. These notions regarding student assessment make it difficult to change attitudes of the students themselves, as the learning process seems to be long and difficult; what we constantly ask students is to be in class and experience every moment, because only when you experience something, you can learn. On the other hand, we wonder how difficult something can be within this particular context. When the previous and subsequent teaching hours are dominated by the teachercentered model, which may be articulated through the principles of behaviorism, it is essentially like attempting a “brainwashing” of students, when you try to show them a different way of learning. Every time we try to come up with activities and interesting things for children in order to avoid repetition and monotony. We confess that this is not very easy. The learning process is difficult even for us, let alone for the students. We have to force ourselves countless times to think outside the box and not fall into the trap of repetition that we know well (i.e., report, correction, grading). So how do we teachers, first get into the learning process and break free from obsolete evaluation practices? How will we be able to adopt new, innovative, pioneering strategies that will emphasize on their grading and make it interesting?”

However, even to this limited extent, the present research has created some resistance to prevailing practices and provided the means for a new ethic aimed at social justice. After all, action research is not static and homogeneous, but still in progress. We realized that any effect between the views of the subjects could not be seen linearly, but bidirectionally, as various discussions intertwined and redefined positions on both sides. As Grollios (2010) aptly pointed out: “What we consider to be the most essential thing that emerges with action research […] is the need to realize the complex nature of a pedagogical project that challenges the existing social order of things

Findings and Suggestions

93

and sets as its central goal to contribute to the radical social, political and educational transformation”(p. 56).

In fact, according to Carr & Kemmis (2002), “emancipatory” action research is an empowering process for all participants and engages them in the struggle for more rational, fair, democratic forms of education. It is “effective”, because it leads to action based on critical reflection, as well as prudent, because it creates changes that are feasible for the participants. The present research can therefore be used in the field of education and highlight a new ethos for both teachers and learners. This will be manifested through cooperation, democracy, the aesthetics of everyday life, a sense of moderation and rational behavior, reflection and creative contemplation. Such a school will eventually fulfil K. Lewin’s saying: “One of the best ways to understand the world is to try to change it.” After all, the design and implementation of similar approaches with solid theoretical and practical knowledge is a philosophy that we believe should be implemented in high school - and not only -especially in schools that operate in “deprived and excluded” social environments. The reason is that these approaches take into account the students’ school and social environment, their positive attitude and mood, creative and critical thinking and activation through dynamic evaluation mechanisms which, combined, transform them into teachers who evaluate while enjoying creation and learning. Our hope is that the results of this research will be useful in various ways. Undoubtedly, the types of authentic evaluation we have chosen to examine do not exhaust the range of typology. However, we believe that the approaches mentioned have the potential to support the prospect of a more effective school based on human relations, collaboration and the fairer assessment of students, while taking into account their individual characteristics. Furthermore, it will help us teachers, give answers to students’ views, feelings and attitudes as far as the assessment process is concerned. The data showed the absence of a comprehensive program for the assessment of language, built on prerequisites, as well as nuclear and transformational knowledge/skills, which can work together in each class. We hope that the findings of this research will contribute to the development of an appropriate methodology around the process of assessment of Modern Greek in High School. Finally, the present effort was a hybrid step, a beginning for the development of a meaningful evaluation culture in school units through which the old mentality of students’ evaluation changes. Also, teachers who

94

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

coexist, move forward together towards their professional development. “We should neither see the progress of students as separate from our own improvement, nor should we consider ourselves experts (that is, that we do not need to improve further, because we are teachers)” (11/6/2017). Since every change, understandably, takes time to occur and is assimilated slowly, systematic and long-term observation is required in order to draw safe conclusions. That is why the creation of communication networks between schools and universities in the country is considered very essential, in order to utilize the knowledge and have support as well. However, in order for the contribution of the university to be successful, it is essential to understand the context and cognitive and emotional needs of both students and teachers.

Conclusion The present study aimed to investigate the following questions: •

•

•

What problems / challenges do teachers face while trying to design and implement a variety of authentic assessment tools in the classroom? To what extent does the adoption of alternative forms of assessment affect the development of a sense of self-sufficiency in the critical skills of students, the change of conceptual constructions that they have formed for assessment, the teachers and their role as students? What impact does the active involvement of teachers in action research have on their training and professional development?

The above questions were addressed through the action research methodology. Our choice is largely related to our inner value system called “personal philosophy.” Having realized that action research aims to turn teachers into active subjects who research, experiment, apply new practices in order to improve their students as well as themselves, we attempted to renounce our traditional role –a role which is considered to be the only body of knowledge and evaluation, therefore the only body of power, in the school. The prevailing view that the school is dominated by the teacher’s power and the student is limited to the role of passive listener who incurs this power, has lost its validity in the context of this research. A research which promoted active participation, involvement, self-action, tried to liberate the students and render them responsible. In this light, we followed a circular spiral path from the analysis of students’ needs in defining, analysing and prioritizing their assessment objectives and from the design and implementation of defined assessment tools, to their reflection and redesign (Riel, 2010). The actions developed in this context consisted of: 1. The use of the relevant bibliography to formulate a program for the authentic assessment of students. 2. The in-depth analysis of the students’ needs.

96

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

3. The analysis and prioritization of the assessment objectives from the simplest to the most complex, so that it is feasible to define nuclear, prerequisites and transformative knowledge / skills based on the students’ readiness. 4. The collaborative planning of authentic assessment activities that presupposed the possibility for the students to gradually proceed to more demanding assessment structures, in order to satisfy the ongoing development of their learning profile. 5. The implementation and evaluation of actions. 6. The redefinition of emerging problems and redesign of the initial actions. 7. The creation of a non-competitive environment in the classroom. 8. The development of cooperation skills. The individual and collective reflection and the collaboration that developed between the researcher, the facilitator and the critical friend were the driving forces behind the transformation of the traditional assessment that was applied in the classroom, into a dynamic that respected the particularities of the students. This way, the present action research aimed at changing the story, fulfilling what Kemmins (2009) characterizes as its most essential purpose. According to him, the contribution of action research to the production of external knowledge is valuable but secondary, as its primary concern is its contribution to history and not theory. The contribution of any action research and consequently of the present research, to the production of useful knowledge should not be degraded (Elliot, 1991). The knowledge gained from it came from dealing with the specific problems encountered in the reality of the classroom. However, the proposed solutions cannot be successfully applied in any other situation, but can be made available to other struggling teachers as cases to be examined (Altrichter et al., 2001). This is due to the fact that the knowledge produced through action research follows a bottom-up course, from what unfolds in the classroom and at school to the scientific decision-making centers; thus contributing to the progress of educational research. However, in order to be able to investigate how transferable and generalized the findings of an action research are, a detailed and in-depth description of its data during their publication is considered necessary; a factor that was taken into account in the present research when presenting the results. More precisely, the present research showed that the difficulties encountered by the researcher were related to the absence of a detailed

Conclusion

97

evaluation program of the Modern Greek language (and not only) structured on the basis of the multifaceted peculiarities of the students and the inexperience of the latter in alternative forms of assessment. As a consequence of the aforementioned, there is a lack of flexibility in the way some of them work, erratic situations are triggered during the peer evaluation and the time is not used creatively by all. In the list of difficulties faced by the researchers, the inhibitory role of some parents’ outdated assumptions, as well as their inwardly unacknowledged fears about their children’s ability to apply assessment tools effectively, were added. While dealing with these problems, the need for teachers to move towards their professional development was mainly documented, since the solutions to both the problems and challenges faced by the researchers, were not proposed by experts, nor imposed by any external authority. They were searched for and designed by us in collaboration with the facilitator and the critical friend with the autonomous regulation of their actions. At the same time, the effectiveness of action research regarding our selfimprovement was highlighted through the revision of our personal theories and teaching perceptions. Our journal entries reflected our thoughts ‘in practice’ (i.e., the silent thought processes that accompanied the practice), constantly interacted with the performed action and shaped it in such a way that learning takes place (Erotokritou-Stavrou, 2015). At the same time, they allowed both the ‘practice’ reflection, the contemplative examination and the ex-post analysis of what had been implemented. The aim was to acquire knowledge through experience including practice reflection through action (i.e., the reflection on the economic, social, political purposes and conditions of evaluation) as well as the framework in which our school was located and operated (Leitch & Day, 2000). We characteristically noted in our journal (6/6/2017): “Action research was in itself an advantage; we were mainly excited by the fact that the intervention resulted in both the active involvement of my students and the improvement of my “teaching style,” “The exchange of views-experiences worked as a feedback tool,” “We finally reviewed many of our evaluative practices,” “To be honest, we realized some of our errors, even though we knew about them deep down, but did not want to admit it.”

We realized, that many of our efforts to serve the cognitive and social empowerment of our students were undermined by their own grading system

98

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

even though it aptly states that it promotes both. In addition to the above, as our own practices and social contradictions also limited these practices, we considered it proper to involve a facilitator in the research. She drew our attention to critical theories, which we then tried to examine through our own experience, to see if they were authentic and so based on them, we tested our emerging ideas. More specifically, we considered the presence of the facilitator to be “a second point of view, a second opinion and an opportunity for discussion”, which became more creative as a result. “The opportunity she offered us for regular meetings with the consultant-critical associate and the parallel application in class, of what was said in the meetings, helped us significantly, as the knowledge we acquired was integrated into our teaching in the classroom” (5/6/2017). In general, we believe “the contact was constructive and functional”, because “it was not confined within a theoretical context”. In the light of the above, the research conducted was of good quality. In particular, the principles that supported it were those of framing, openness, understanding, communication and identification of different perspectives. It offered us the opportunity to explore the subject-phenomenon through communication and narration of the participants themselves, noting the different perspectives and the variety of meanings. The principle of openness urged us to study before researching; that is to identify the way and the content in which the field of evaluation was carried out –a principle, which seems inextricably linked to that of framing, where data is produced and interpreted within the frameworks they exist and not outside of them (Tsiolis, 2014: 31-33). At the same time the action research carried out is practical (Habermas, 1970), as it is a conscious action of choice, guided by our personal judgment as researchers. In particular: 1. The facilitator, the critical friend and we, collaborated in order to improve the assessment practices of the students. 2. Through this process, we checked and realized that our practice was based on our implicit theories, which we understood at first and then wanted to change. Indicatively, we mention in our journal (20/6/2017):”This year we prioritized relationships and children’s groups as an essential component of the assessment, even though we worked in a similar way the previous years. Many times, however, we put this aside, in order to proceed with the different programs that we had undertaken in the classroom “,” It was a new

Conclusion

99

experience. We had not dealt with this issue again. “This year we focused on the children’s relationships during the assessment and this resulted in our connecting more with them emotionally.” The reconstruction in terms of values, perceptions and practices provided us with new information, ideas and optimism. We felt optimistic, because through action research we saw that there are ways to resolve various problems that we encounter every day in the classroom and we stopped feeling so strongly the loneliness of the ineffectiveness of our evaluations. The emphasis on children’s relationships and the creation of a collaborative environment of acceptance completely shifted our interest from the result to the process. There was time for collaborative learning, dialogue and discussion and everyone was interested in participating. This change is important, to the extent that the pressure and anxiety teachers felt in order to implement many enriched actions, urges them to emphasize on a specific result and ignore the procedures. 3. Throughout the action research, there was a dialogue between theory and practice and constant reflection on practice, fueling a process that connected educational action with scientific research, contributing to its professional development (active teacher role). At the same time, the present research went beyond practical action research, as it was not limited to a process of personal transformation through the examination of practice and self-reflection. It also extended to the analysis of the social conditions that shape practice within the classroom. In more detail, its emancipatory character is confirmed by the following: 1. Through the second and third cycle of action research, students were given the opportunity to discover by themselves the positive results of their evaluation and in the long run, preserve the quality of the change brought about by action research. 2. We have been given the opportunity as researchers to choose strategies for an effective change in our profession while the control we have tried to exercise in the socio-political context is ultimately emancipatory knowledge. Teachers who are critical of the curriculum, overthrow the status quo, take a stand on culture, education, society, deconstruct power structures by promoting challenge, develop their role and transform into a body of change (Zarifis, 2009).

100

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

3. In this context, we place emphasis on the importance of observing children as a tool both for a better understanding of their behavior during peer and self-assessment as well as the design of respective assessment practices. We realised that educational and social phenomena are not interpreted uniformly through general rules, laws and repetitive measurements since their contexts of application, needs and particularities faced by the teacher are different (Koutselini, 2010). We noted in our journal (15/6/2017):”If you do not observe, you may misunderstand the child’s behaviour. This year we observed the children more closely and organized our practices accordingly. You are, after all, more open when you observe as you may not know what is happening in your classroom.” This realisation is important to the degree that we reflect on our past practices and acknowledge the value of being aware of what is happening in the classroom and maintaining an open attitude as teachers. 4. The knowledge gained above is emancipatory, because we realized the power we have as a carrier of educational and social change (empowerment through critical self-reflection, Katsaros & Tsafos, 2003). In this framework, after all the importance of systematic recordings has generally emerged as essential in order to reinforce documented evaluation practice and avoid making decisions based on general impressions. With reference to the modern and / or post-modern elements of the present research, it has been ultimately shown that hidden modern elements also exist. The first modern element is the very use of research in educational practice supported by formal theory –a fact that renders the research scientific. In other words, during the discussions with the critical friend, we found valid answers to the problems that arose through the examination of an extensive bibliography. Throughout the research, elements of basic moral and political principles of the modern era (e.g., the democratic disposition, rationalism and equality in the opportunities for participation in the dialogue) prevailed. A modern feature is the way in which those involved in the research operated within a broader social context which often defined their values and practices. However, the post-modern elements (e.g., prevailing liquidity, disagreements and the variety of opinions in the discussions and interpretations given for the same data) are also present. Our choice for a more critical-emancipatory assessment using experiential evaluation and free

Conclusion

101

non-standard methodological tools in the second and third cycle are elements of postmodernity. The effort to strengthen students’ critical thinking and creativity through authentic processes and the use of their pre-existing knowledge for the creation of new knowledge, correspond to post-modern perceptions. In general, our effort to become progressively less essential to the students, leading them to the realization of concepts and the acquisition of evaluative and collaborative experiences, are also elements of postmodern thinking. As a reflective and evaluative process, it provided us with the tools to design assessment techniques stemming from the data of exploring the needs of students. It also helped us set aside traditional forms of evaluation, challenge ourselves and use the existing bibliography as well as the input of the critical friend. We were consequently able to be more effective, develop our self-criticism and receptivity, use our conclusions for the benefit of learning, reflect critically on the texts of the curricula and understand the ideology behind this practice. Furthermore, we were able to comprehend the logic behind the curriculum, tell the truth to the students, promote dialogue by highlighting democratic institutions and, finally, change the way we view reality. The conclusions of this - as well as every - action research are spatiotemporally in this class. Regarding the question whether local knowledge was produced, the answer is: The local knowledge produced was engraved in the hearts and minds of all those involved in the process (i.e., students, parents, colleagues, the school principal, the facilitator, the critical friend and ours) and repositioned us at the beginning, as if it was our first time. This occurred due to the fact that the data analysis generated new questions: • •

• •

To what extent is the change of the students’ attitude temporary or permanent? How morally correct is it for students to participate in this research process, when they do not realize, due to their age, that they themselves are the subjects of this research? How is it legitimate for every teacher to organize such a research? In the context of what methodical activity is it possible to observe oneself? What can be done to make education more creative and critical?

102

K. Iliopoulou, A. Anastasiadou, G. Karountzou et al.

•

•

How effectively can teachers perform when they act as researchers at the same time? Which process do they sacrifice the most: that of learning or that of research? On what level did the educational unit in which the action research was conducted benefit from this process?

In general, like all previous action researches, the present research demonstrated that teachers who want to improve their teaching and assessment practice and also try new assessment methods and ways of pedagogical intervention, can find the ideal setting to implement the action research through the framework of authentic assessment. Therefore, the question “what is the benefit of participating in an actionresearch and for whom?” can function both self-reflectively and as a question to the participating teachers themselves. It enables them to recognize the value of action research not only in the academic but also in the educational-practical context. This confirms the view of Kemmis (2010) who observes that participants in action research are not only led to make the most important decisions but also affords a deeper knowledge of themselves as well as a re-creation of themselves. At the same time, they work collectively to capture the tangible problems they encounter daily in class and produce useful theoretical knowledge, which contributes to the creation of a better, happier world. Besides, according to Kemmis (2010; 2009), through individual and collective reflection on the actions of the participants, a form of wisdom and subsequently self-knowledge emerges, which strengthens individuals’ ability to prudently face negative evaluations, either their own or those of others. We must also state that we faced the possible “threat” that the actionresearch we carried out was becoming theoretical. And while the aim of the action research is to improve educational practice, we feared that it was becoming an academic subject. We were worried that the educational act would become secondary and would be replaced by a spiritual search and a scientific interest in educational action research in general. Therefore, we tried to avoid theoretical parameters that could exclude us not only from the discussion about educational research-action but also from our substantial involvement in it. This way we sought the essential dialogue between us and academic discourse; thus strengthening one of the basic principles of educational action research: the interaction of theory and practice with crucial consequences in many sectors.

Conclusion

103

Finally, we believe the demand to introduce research-action as part of formal education policy emerged. This need is evident in the current institutional and educational framework which is described by an administrative bureaucratic structure, reduced teacher and school autonomy, teachers’ lack of confidence in any new educational policy effort, established educational practices and a lack of collaborative culture schools. To sum up, the need to recognize the gap between the intention to introduce research-action as a process of supporting professional learning and educational reality became apparent. That same need is evident in the planning of the introduction of action research through a systemic framework that will introduce at the same time other changes that limit the obstacles of the institutional framework of assessment of students. Furthermore, it will connect action research with all school actions (e.g., planning, action plan, student self-assessment), will highlight the active and decisive role of teachers along with the need to explore the perspectives of other participants in the school (i.e., students and parents). Finally, it will gradually move forward and give time to teachers’ associations to shape their research questions and set the direction for improvement of the educational project provided.

Appendices

Content Fully understands the content. Distinguishes the main from the secondary points and recognizes the way the speech is organized and the intentions of the transmitter. Register Understands style and means of expression (literal and metaphorical, humor, irony, allusion, etc.) Critique Fully evaluates the information and critically examines the arguments.

Student name:

Class: Understands the content with Recognizes only the obvious and guidance. It only extracts the basic meanings. It is difficult to central idea of the text and/or distinguish the way the speech is captures in part the way the speech organized and the intentions of the is organized and the intentions of transmitter. the transmitter. Understands style and means of Understands with guidance the style Recognizes very few means of expression satisfactorily and the means of expression of expression (literal and (literal and metaphorical, humor, speech (literal and metaphorical, metaphorical, humor, irony, irony, allusion, etc.) humor, irony, allusion etc.) allusion etc.) Adequately evaluates the Evaluates little information and Merely formulates agreement/ information and critically faces problems in critically disagreement with the transmitter’s examines the arguments examining arguments. views, without evaluating the information, critically examining the arguments and justifying its choices.

Approaches the content with relative accuracy. It outlines the main and secondary points, the way the speech is organized and the intentions of the transmitter.

Appendix 1. Descriptive Evaluation Rubric

Comprehension of oral and written discourse

Production of oral and written discourse

Easily writes texts of different kinds. Develops issues globally with rich, accurate and substantiated arguments. Successfully compiles the summary of a text. Presents personal opinion in oral discourse with respect to the topic and compares it with opposite views.

Texts are on the topic, student Develops only certain Texts are often off topic, develops the most important aspects of the topic, while while the argumentation is aspects of the topics with the argument is limited. insufficient and/or incorrect. relatively well-documented and Writes the summary of a text Has difficulty writing rich in general argumentation. without distinguishing the summaries. In oral Writes the summary of a text main from the secondary discourse, student is unable satisfactorily. In oral discourse, the points. It is difficult for to express personal opinion student relatively easily presents student to express personal and to compare it with personal opinion with respect to an opinion and to compare it opposite views. issue and compares it with with opposite views. opposite views. Expression/Spelling Expression in writing and orally Satisfactory expression in written Difficulty in expression Wording is vague and with clarity and accuracy using and oral discourse using relatively written and oral discourse simplistic, while the appropriate for the occasion and appropriate and sufficient using limited vocabulary and vocabulary is poor and rich vocabulary. Enriches his / her vocabulary and expressive means. expressive means. Has unsuitable for the speech with the appropriate means Applies the grammar rules in difficulties in applying communication occasion. of expression. Applies grammar general. grammar rules. Use of minimum grammar rules correctly. rules (syntax, spelling, punctuation). Structure Texts are well structured, the Organizes texts in a satisfactory The organization of texts is The organization of texts is paragraphing is correct, the way, the structure of the insufficient, the textual done in a random or harmonization with the text paragraphs is quite satisfactory, indicators are incomplete, unsuccessful way, without indicators is successful and the the principles of the respective while the coherence of ideas coherence and cohesion coherence/sequence of ideas is textual genre are generally cogent is loose. between ideas. Text successful. and the coherence of ideas is indicators are missing. sufficient.

Content

Penmanship/legibility

Organization

Punctuality

Comments

Legible writing and good penmanship.

Responds consistently to obligations. Always deliver work on time. Maintains a well-organized record of notes and assignments.

Behavior during lesson Has impeccable behavior: Has a clear sense of the acceptable limits.

Occasionally involved in learning processes.

Participates in the learning processes only if pressed by the teacher. Collaborates after pressure. Only works with classmates Finds it difficult to when necessary, so either lets communicate with the other others do the work or works members of the team, does not alone, ignoring the other team always complete the work members. undertaken. Behaves decently: Sometimes it Behaves several times in an Tends to exceed the permissible exceeds the allowed limits but annoying way. Exceeds the limits. There are often harsh returns immediately after allowed limits by negatively remarks and reprimands. observation. affecting the class. Is punctual with obligations. Many times is not punctual Not punctual: delivers the works Occasionally, delays the with obligations. Usually late, or does not deliver them at delivery of some work. delivers work late. all. Knows how to organize the files Folders and notebooks are Has no organized notebooks and and the material of the course, quite messy. Needs guidance folders. Misses notes and although does not always have to put them in order. assignments. the necessary time to organize them. Satisfactory legibility of writing, Not interested in producing a Writes illegibly and hastily, texts but without being flawless legible text. are often incomprehensible. (some sloppiness is evident). There are important elements that are often missing from the text.

Participates substantially Actively participates in the and constructively in the lesson with occasional lack of class procedures. attention. Collaboration during Likes to work with others. Collaborates with classmates, the lesson Becomes a key member of without much enthusiasm. the team, respects other Handles the work undertaken, members and takes positive does not clash with the other initiatives. members of the team.

Class participation

Stayed on topic (100%). The ideas were presented with a beginning, middle and end. During the presentation the student did not consult notes at all and looked at the audience a lot. Spoke clearly, loudly, used appropriate language to express meaning. Student’s part of the presentation is within the allotted time limit.

Grade Excellent The student was fully prepared with many rehearsals.

(Adapted from: http://bie.org).

Time limit

Delivery

Eye contact

Information presentation

Preparation

Category

Student’s part of the presentation is within 1 minute +/- of the allotted time limit.

Stayed on topic most of the time (90%). The issues were well organized. During the presentation, of course, the student rarely consulted notes and looked at the audience a lot. Spoke clearly, and loudly, but made some errors.

Satisfactory The student needed more rehearsals

Appendix 2. Peer Evaluation Rubric for Oral Presentations Average The rehearsals were missing but there was a rudimentary preparation Stayed on topic (80%). One could not follow the order of the topics. During the presentation the student looked a lot at the notes and rarely at the audience. Made errors and a few gestures to better express meaning. Student’s part of the presentation is within 2 minutes +/- of the allotted time limit.

Stuttered due to stress, could not be understood and did not use speech properly. Student’s part of the presentation is too long or too short.

The student could not look at the audience in the eye and was stuck on the notes.

One could not understand what the topic was.

Low The student was completely unprepared

COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSE TOTAL:

SPELLING – PRESENTATION

ARGUMENTATION

CONTENT EXPRESSION

ORGANIZATION – STRUCTURE

CRITERIA

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • Preface-Main part-Conclusion Consistency with the use of cohesive words Proper paragraphing Adequate development of the topic Proper syntax so that no ambiguities are created Correct expression Substantial coverage of the issue The ideas and views that are developed are clear and supported by sound arguments Repeated mistakes Mistakes of carelessness Emphasis Punctuation Smudges Style Key features

COMMENTS

Appendix 3. Criteria for Peer Evaluation of Essays INSUFFICIENT (2 points)

SATISFACTORY (3 points)

EXCELLENT (4 points)

References Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for assessment in New Zealand (DANZ): Developing students’ assessment capabilities. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Aggelakos, K. A. (2004). “Η διαθεματικότητα και τα” νέα “προγράμματα σπουδών της υποχρεωτικής εκπαίδευσης: Κριτική προσέγγιση μιας ασύμβατης σχέσης”. Στο Κ. Αγγελάκος & Κόκκινος Γ. (Επιμ.), Η διαθεματικότητα στο σύγχρονο σχολείο και η διδασκαλία της Ιστορίας με τη χρήση πηγών (σ. 43-53). Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο. [“Interdisciplinarity and the” new “curricula of compulsory education: A critical approach to an incompatible relationship”. In K. Angelakos & Kokkinos G. (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity in the modern school and the teaching of History with the use of sources (pp. 43-53). Athens: Metaichmio] Allal, L. (2001). Situated cognition and learning: From conceptual frameworks to classroom investigations. Revue Suisse des sciences de l’éducation, 23, 407-422. Allen, S. & Knight, J. (2009). A Method for Collaboratively Developing and Validating a Rubric. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 117. Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (2001). Οι εκπαιδευτικοί ερευνούν το έργο τους (μετ. Μ. Δεληγιάννη). Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο [Teachers research their work (translated by M. Deligianni). Athens: Metaichmio]. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M. & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), pp. 5-11. Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57 (5), 13-18. Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27-30. Andrade, H. & Valtcheva A. (2008). Promoting Learning and Achievement Through SelfAssessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12 -19. Andreadakis, N. et al. (2005). Αυτοαξιολόγηση μαθητή ως διαδικασία αυτοπροσδιορισμού του στο σχολείο. Εκπαιδευτική – Σχολική Ψυχολογία. Αθήνα: Ατραπός [Student selfassessment as a process of self-determination in school. Educational - School Psychology. Athens: Atrapos]. Athanasiou L. (2003). Γλώσσα – Γλωσσική Επικοινωνία και Διδασκαλία στην Πρωτοβάθμια και Δευτεροβάθμια Εκπαίδευση [Language - Language Communication and Teaching in Primary and Secondary Education.]. Ιωάννινα: Γ. Δούβαλης - Ε. Αποστόλου. Avgitidou, S. (2009). Participation, Roles and Processes in an Action Research Project: a reflexive account of the facilitator. Educational Action Research¸ 17, (4): 585-600. Avgitidou, S. Tsalagiorgou, E. & Marselou, V. (2006). Η ποιότητα της κοινωνικής αλληλεπίδρασης στην τάξη του νηπιαγωγείου: Έρευνα και παρέμβαση στην προσχολική εκπαίδευση. Στο Χατζηδήμου, Δ., Μπίκος, Κ., Στραβάκου Π. &

112

References

Χατζηδήμου, Κ. (επιμ.). 5ο Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο της Παιδαγωγικής Εταιρείας Ελλάδος “Ελληνική Παιδαγωγική και Εκπαιδευτική Έρευνα”, Πρακτικά, τόμος Α’, 407-414. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη. [The quality of social interaction in the kindergarten classroom: Research and intervention in preschool education. In Hatzidimou, D., Bikos, K., Stravakou P. & Hatzidimou, K. (eds.). 5th Panhellenic Conference of the Pedagogical Society of Greece “Greek Pedagogical and Educational Research”, Proceedings, volume A', 407-414. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.] Beattie, C. (1989). Action Research: a practice in need of theory? In G. Milburn, I. Goodson, & R. Clark (Eds). Re-interpreting curriculum research, images and arguments. London: The Falmer Press, 110-120. Blommel, M., & Abate, A. (2007). A rubric to assess critical literature evaluation skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 71(4), 1-8. Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413. Bouzakis S. (1995). Εκπαιδευτικές Μεταρρυθμίσεις στην Ελλάδα [Educational Reforms in Greece]. Athens: Gutenberg. Breuing, M. (2011). Problematizing critical pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 2-23. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman. Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2011). Is there a space for critical literacy in the context of social media?. English Teaching: Practice & Critique (University Of Waikato), 10(1), 41-57. Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing, 27(1), 5–31. Buzzetto-More, N. & Alade, A. (2006). Best Practices in e-Assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 251-269. Carr, W. & Kemmis, St. (2002). Για μια κριτική εκπαιδευτική θεωρία. Εκπαίδευση, γνώση και έρευνα δράσης, μετ. Α. Λαμπράκη-Παγανού, Ε. Μηλίγκου, Κ. ΡοδιάδουΑλμπάνη. Αθήνα: Κώδικας [For a critical educational theory. Education, knowledge and action research, translated by A. Lambraki-Paganou, E. Miligou, K. RodiadouAlbani. Athens: Code]. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (2009). Educational action research: A critical approach. The SAGE handbook of educational action research, 74-84. Chapman, V. G. & Inman, M. (2009). A Conundrum: Rubrics or Creativity/ Metacognitive. Development? Educational Horizons, 87(3), 198-202. Charalampopoulos, A (1988). Διδασκαλία της λειτουργικής χρήσης της γλώσσας [Teaching the functional use of language]. Γλώσσα, τ. 16, σ. 28. Charisis, A. E. (2006a). Αξιολόγηση της μάθησης στο σχολείο [Assessment of school learning]. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοί Κυριακίδη. Charisis, A. E. (2006b). Alternative evaluative methods of learning and Crosscurricular και Διαθεματικό Ενιαίο Πλαίσιο Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών (Δ.Ε.Π.Π.Σ.). In: Ηevaluation στην education: παιδαγωγική και διδακτική διάσταση: 71 κείμενα για

References

113

τηνevaluation [Evaluation in education: pedagogical and didactic dimension: 71 texts on evaluation]. Athens: Αφοί Κυριακίδη. Chen Y. M. (2006). Peer- and self-assessment for English oral performance: A study of reliability and learning benefits. English Teaching and Learning, 30(4), 1–22. Chontolidou, E. (1988). Paedagogical and Teaching principles of school Programme . Γλώσσα, 22, 29-37. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 51(3), 279-310. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 52–70. Google Scholar. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (2000). Μεθοδολογία εκπαιδευτικής έρευνας [Educational research methodology], μτφ. Μητσοπούλου Χρ. - Φιλοπούλου Μ. Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο Cohen, L., L. Manion, & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Coombe, C. Al-Hamly, M. & Troudi, S. (2010). Foreign and second language teacher assessment literacy: Issues, challenges and recommendations. In J, A. Carmona (ed) Language teaching and Learning in ESL Education (pp.51-60). Kona Publishing and Media Company Coombe, C., Troudi, S., & Al-Hamly, M. (2012). Foreign and second language teacher assessment literacy: issues, challenges, and recommendations. In O‟Sullivan, B., Stoynoff, S. Davidson, P. & Coombe, C. (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuban, L. (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educational Researcher, 211, 4-11. Cumming, J. & Graham, S. (1999). Contextualising Authentic Assessment. Assessment in Education, 6 (2), 177-194. Danesh, H. (2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 3 (1), 55-78. Darder, A. (2003). Teaching as an Act of Love: Reflections on Paulo Freire and His Contribution to Our Lives and Our Work. In The Critical Pedagogy Reader (ed. Darder, A., Baltodano, M. & Torres, R. D., 2003). New York: Routledge Falmer. Day, C. (1985) Professional Learning and Researcher Intervention: an action research perspective. BESJ 11 (2), 133–152. Demertzi, K. (2006). Εκπαιδευτική αλλαγή: Ρητορεία, ουτοπία ή εφικτή πραγματικότητα [Educational change: Rhetoric, utopia or possible reality.]. Στο Μπαγάκη, Γ. (επιμ.), Εκπαιδευτικές αλλαγές, η παρέμβαση του εκπαιδευτικού και του σχολείου [Educational changes, the intervention of the teacher and the school]. Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο. Dimitropoulos, E. (2003). Εκπαιδευτική αξιολόγηση – μέρος δεύτερο: η αξιολόγηση του μαθητή (7η έκδ.). Αθήνα: Γρηγόρης [Educational evaluation - part two: the student evaluation (7th ed.). Athens: Grigoris]. Dochy, F., Gijbels, D., & Segers, M. (2006). Learning and the emerging new assessment culture. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Oxford, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

114

References

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Longman. Earl, K. & Giles, D. (2011). An-other look at assessment: Assessment in learning. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 8(1), 11-20. Egan, K. & Gardner, H. (1992). An exchange: The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. Teachers College Record, 94, pp. 397-407. Elliot, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes and Philadephia: Open University Press. Elliot, J. (1993). Action Research for Educational Change. (3th edition). Bristol, USA: Open University Press. Elliott, J. (2004) Using research to improve practice: the notion of evidence-based practice, in C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds) International handbook on the continuing professional development ofteachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Epstein, A., S., Schweinhart, L., J., DeBruin - Parecki, A. & Robin, K., B. (2004). Preschool Assessment: A Guide to Developing a Balanced Approach, National Institute For Early Education Research, τ. 7 Erotokritou – Stavrou, Th. (2015). Διαφοροποίηση της διδασκαλίας-μάθησης και αποτελεσματική διδασκαλία της κατανόησης κειμένου της Α΄ Λυκείου σε τάξεις μεικτής ετοιμότητας. Αδημοσίευτη διδακτορική διατριβή. Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου, Τμήμα Επιστημών της Αγωγής [Differentiation of teaching-learning and effective teaching of text comprehension of the AD Lyceum in mixed readiness classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Cyprus, Department of Education]. Flores B. S. (2009). Authentic Assessment For Courses and Programs. Del Mar College. Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2006). The ‘critical’ in critical reflection. Critical reflection in health and social care, 40-53. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of Educational change. London: Routledge Falmer. Gay, G. (2011). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gavrilidou, M., Emmanouilidis, P. & Petridou-Emmanouilidou, H. (2006). Νεοελληνική Γλώσσα, Β΄ Γυμνασίου. Βιβλίο Εκπαιδευτικού [Modern Greek Language, 2nd Gymnasium. Teacher's book]. Αθήνα: ΟΕΔΒ. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond Testing: towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press. Giroux, H. (2010). Θεωρίες της Αναπαραγωγής και της Αντίστασης στη Νέα Κοινωνιολογία της Εκπαίδευσης: Προς μία Κριτική Θεωρία του Σχολείου και μία Αντίπαλη Παιδιαγωγική. Στο Γούναρη, Π. & Γρόλλιος, Γ. (επιμ.), Κριτική Παιδαγωγική: μια συλλογή κειμένων. Αθήνα: Gutenberg, σσ. 63-120 [Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: Towards a Critical Theory of School and an Opponent of Pedagogy. In Gounari, P. & Grollios, G. (eds.), Critical Pedagogy: a collection of texts. Athens: Gutenberg, pp. 63-120].

References

115

Goldstein, H. (1989). Psychometric test theory and educational assessment. In H. Simons & J. Elliott (Eds), Rethinking Appraisal and Assessment, Buckingham: Open University. Gordon, E. W., Bonilla-Bowman, C. (1996). Can performance-based assessment contribute to the achievement of educational equity? In: J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds), Performance-based student achievement: Challenges and possibilities, pp. 3251. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Green, B. (1995). A comparability of scores from performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 43, pp. 54-57. Greene, S. (1992). Multiple explanations for multiply quantified sentences: Are multiple models necessary? Psychological Review, 99, 184-187. Grollios, G. (2010). Εισαγωγή [Introduction]. Στο Γούναρη, Π. & Γρόλλιος, Γ. (επιμ.) Κριτική Παιδαγωγική: μια συλλογή κειμένων [Critical Pedagogy: a collection of texts]. Αθήνα: Gutenberg, 11-61. Grosdos, S. (2006). Περιγραφική αξιολόγηση. Μια πρόταση [Descriptive evaluation. A proposal]. Στο Κακανά Δ., Κ. Μπότσογλου, Ν. Χανιωτάκης, και Ε. Καβαλάρη (επιμ.), Η αξιολόγηση στην Εκπαίδευση. Παιδαγωγική και διδακτική διάσταση. 71 κείμενα για την αξιολόγηση [Evaluation in Education. Pedagogical and didactic dimension. 71 texts for evaluation]. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοί Κυριακίδη. Grosdos, S. (2015). Εναλλακτικές μορφές αξιολόγησης του μαθητή/τριας: Οι απόψεις των εκπαιδευτικών και των γονέων [Alternative forms of student assessment: The views of teachers and parents]. Εμπειρική έρευνα. PRIME, Vol 8, Issue 2, 42-53. Grundy, S. (2003). Αναλυτικό Πρόγραμμα: Προϊόν ή Πράξις [Curriculum: Product or Practice], μτφ Ε. Γεωργιάδη. Αθήνα: Σαββάλας. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In C. F. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L. R. Latucca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: ASHE reader series (2nd ed., pp. 57–72). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Habermas, J. (1970). On Systematically Distorted Communication. Inquiry 13 (1-4): 205218. Hafner, C. & Hafner, M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of science education, 25, 1509-1528. Harland, T. (2005). Developing portfolio to promote authentic enquiry in teacher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 10 (3), 327-337. Hasani, R. (2014). The experiences of elementary school teachers from the implementation of a descriptive evaluation project. Quarterly Journal of Measuring and Educational Evaluation Studies, Year 4, Number 7, pp. 60-33. Hasani, M. & Gholamali, A. (2007). Qualitative-descriptive qualitative survey in elementary schools in Tehran. Educational Innovations, Volume 6, Issue 23. Hitt, A. M., & Helms, E. C. (2009). Best in show: Teaching old dogs to use new rubrics. The Professional Educator, 33(1), 1-15. Huizen, P. V., Bert, V. O., Wubbels, T. (2005). A Vygotskian perspective on teacher education. Curriculum Studies, 37 (3), pp. 267-290.

116

References

Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social life. Journal of of Social Issues, v. 23 (1). Iliopoulou, K. (2008). Τα νέα διδακτικά εγχειρίδια στο μάθημα της Γλώσσας στο Γυμνάσιο και η αξιολόγηση γραπτού λόγου: σχέσεις και προβληματισμοί υπό το πρίσμα της επικοινωνιακής προσέγγισης. Στο Γεωργογιάννης Π. (επιμ.), Πρακτικά του 2ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου με θέμα “Νέο Εκπαιδευτικό Υλικό του ΥΠΕΠΘ – Αξιολόγηση και Διοίκηση Α’/βάθμιας και Β’/βάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης” (14-16 Νοεμβρίου, Άρτα). 2008. Πάτρα: ΚΕΔΕΚ, τομ. 2, 644-652 [The new textbooks in the Language course in High School and the evaluation of written language: relationships and reflections in the light of the communicative approach. In Georgogiannis P. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on “New Educational Material of the Ministry of Education - Evaluation and Administration of Primary and Secondary Education” (November 14-16, Arta). 2008. Patra: KEDEK, vol. 2, 644-652]. Iliopoulou, K. (2013). “Αξιολόγηση βάσει φακέλου στο μάθημα της Γλώσσας: Δυνατότητες και περιορισμοί στο πλαίσιο των νέων Α. Π. στο Γυμνάσιο» (2013). Στο Ματθαιουδάκη Μ. (επιμ.), Πρακτικά του 1ο Πανελλήνιου Συνεδρίου Προτύπων Πειραματικών Σχολειων Α/θμιας και Β/θμιας Εκπαίδευσης με θέμα «Πρότυπα Πειραματικά Σχολεία: Ένας χρόνος μετά” [“Folder-based assessment in the Language course: Possibilities and limitations in the context of the new AP in High School” (2013). In Mattheoudakis M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st Panhellenic Conference of Standard Experimental Schools of Primary and Secondary Education on “Standard Experimental Schools: A Year Later”]. Θεσσαλονίκη, Απρίλιος 2013. Διαθέσιμο στο http://3dim-evosm.web.auth.gr/conference/pp.419-428.pdf. Iliopoulou, K. & Mavridou, Α. (2017). Κατανόηση και παραγωγή προφορικού λόγου στο Γυμνάσιο στο μάθημα της ΝΕ Γλώσσας: Εναλλακτικές διδακτικές προτάσεις [Comprehension and production of oral speech in High School in the NE Language course: Alternative didactic suggestions]. Θεσσαλονίκη, Φιλόλογος, 167(63-76). Iliopoulou, K. & Zagga, El. (2021). Κατανόηση και παραγωγή προφορικού λόγου: Διδασκαλία και αξιολόγηση με εφαρμογές [Comprehension and production of oral speech: Teaching and evaluation with applications]. Θεσσαλονίκη: Εκδόσεις Κυριακίδη. Kapsalis, A. & Chaniotakis, N. (2011). Εκπαιδευτική αξιολόγηση [Educational evaluation]. Αθήνα: Εκδοτικός Οίκος Αδελφών Κυριακίδη α.ε. Kassotakis, M. (2013). Η Αξιολόγηση της επίδοσης των μαθητών/τριών. Θεωρητικές προσεγγίσεις & πρακτικές εφαρμογές [The Evaluation of the performance of the students / three. Theoretical approaches and practical applications]. Αθήνα: Γρηγόρης. Katsarou, E. & Dedouli, M. (2008). Επιμόρφωση και Αξιολόγηση στο χώρο της Εκπαίδευσης [Training and Evaluation in the field of Education]. Αθήνα: Υπουργείο Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων, Παιδαγωγικό Ινστιτούτο. Ανακτήθηκε στις 16/5/2016, από http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/epim_stelexoi/epim_yliko/book5. pdf.

References

117

Katsarou, E. & Tsafos, V. (2003). Από την Έρευνα στη Διδασκαλία. Η εκπαιδευτική έρευνα δράσης [From Research to Teaching. Educational action research]. Αθήνα: Σαββάλας. Kemmis, S. (2010). What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action Research, 18 (4), 417 – 427. Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice-based practice. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 463-474. Kemmis S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Reader. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research, in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln [Eds] Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 559–604. Kitchen, J., & Stevens, D. (2005). Self-study in action research: Two teacher educators review their project and practice. Ontario Action Researcher, 8(1). Retrieved from http://oar.nipissingu.ca/PDFS/V811E.pdf Konstantinou, Ch. (2004). Η αξιολόγηση της επίδοσης του μαθητή ως παιδαγωγική λογική και σχολική πρακτική [The evaluation of student performance as pedagogical logic and school practice]. Αθήνα: Gutenberg. Kontogiannis, K. (2003). Τα Βασικά χαρακτηριστικά της ποιοτικής περιγραφικής αξιολόγησης [The Key features of qualitative descriptive evaluation]. Ανακτήθηκε στις 8-9-2014 από τη διεύθυνση http://www.e-paideia.net. Koutselini, M. (2008a). Listening to students´ voices for teaching in mixed ability classrooms: Presuppositions and considerations for differentiated instruction. Learning and teaching, 1(1), 17-30. Koutselini, M. (2008b). ‘Participatory Teacher Development at schools: processes and issues’. Action Research, 6: 29-48. Koutselini, M. & Patsalidou, Fr. (2015). Engaging School Teachers and School Principals in an Action Research in- Service development as a means of pedagogical selfawareness. Educational Action Research, 23(2), 124-139. Koutsogiannis, D. (2010). Προς μια Γραμματική του Παιδαγωγικού λόγου. Στο Τζιτζιλής Χ., Παυλίδου Θ.-Σ, Παπαναστασίου Γ. (2010). Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα 30. Πρακτικά της Ετήσιας Συνάντησης του Τομέα Γλωσσολογίας του Τμήματος Φιλολογίας της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 2–3 Μαΐου, 2009. σσ. 343-356 [Towards a Grammar of Pedagogical Speech. In Tzitzilis Ch., Pavlidou TH-S, Papanastasiou G. (2010). Studies in the Greek Language 30. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics of the Department of Philology of the School of Philosophy of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki May 2-3, 2009. pp. 343-356]. Lantz, H. (2004). Rubrics for assessing student achievement in science, grades K-12. Corwin Press. Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, 8, 179-193. Linn, R. L. (1990). Essentials of student assessment: from accountability to instructional aid. Teachers College Record, 91, 422-436.

118

References

Loizidou, A. and Koutselini, M. (2007). Metacognitive monitoring: A key and an obstacle to effective learning. Teachers & Teaching, 13:5, 499-519. Mantaki, S. (1999). Η ολική γλώσσα στη διδακτική της γλωσσικής έκφρασης για την Α/θμια Εκπαίδευση [The total language in the didactics of language expression for Primary Education]. Αθήνα: Κώδικας. Matsaggouras, H. (1985). Η διδασκαλία στο ελληνικό σχολείο: ερευνητική περιγραφή, αξιολόγηση και διδακτικές υποδείξεις [Teaching in the Greek school: research description, evaluation and didactic suggestions]. Σύγχρονη Εκπαίδευση, 25, σελ. 7786. Matsaggouras, H. (1999). Η σχολική τάξη. Αθήνα: εκδ. Γρηγόρη. Marzano, R. J. (2002). A comparison of selected methods of scoring classroom assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 249–267. Mavridou, A. & Iliopoulou, K. (2017). Εναλλακτική διδακτική και αξιολόγηση της Νεοελληνικής Γραμματείας στο Πιλοτικό Γυμνάσιο [Alternative teaching and evaluation of the Modern Greek Secretariat at the Pilot High School]. Φιλόλογος. Θεσσαλονίκη, 167(76-90). Mc Beath, J. (2001). Η αυτοαξιολόγηση στο σχολείο. Ουτοπία και πράξη [Self-assessment at school. Utopia and practice]. (Χ. Δούκας & Ζ. Πολυμεροπούλου, Μετάφρ.). Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα. Mc Gilchricst, B., Myers, K. & Reed., J. (2004). The intelligent school. Sage Publications. Mc Kernan, J. A. (2013). The origins of Critical Theory in Education: Fabian socialism as Social Reconstructionism in Nineteenth-Century Britain. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(4), 417-433. Mc Laren, P. (2010). Κριτική Παιδαγωγική: Μία Επισκόπηση [Critical Pedagogy: An Overview]. Στο Γούναρη, Π. & Γρόλλιος, Γ. (επιμ.), Κριτική Παιδαγωγική: μια συλλογή κειμένων [Critical Pedagogy: a collection of texts]. Αθήνα: Gutenberg, σσ. 279-330. Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment, in: Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 11, 5-8. Michou, A., Zineli, K., Tseva, I., kyriakou, S., tsilia, G., Ladieli, M. & Trachana, E. (2008). Εκπαιδευτικοί και μαθητές διερευνούν τον εαυτό τους στο πλαίσιο της έρευνας δράσης [Teachers and students explore themselves in action research]. Σύγχρονη Κοινωνία, Εκπαίδευση και Ψυχική Υγεία, 1, σσ. 245-278, http://cjweb. gr/~skepsy/downloadsection/teyxos-1/245-278.pdf. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall Montgomery, K. (2000). Classroom rubrics: Systematizing what teachers do naturally. The Clearing House 73 (6), 324-328. Mpagakis, G. (2002) (επιμ.). Ο Εκπαιδευτικός ως Ερευνητής [The Teacher as a Researcher]. Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο. Neumann, J. (2013). Critical pedagogy’s problem with changing teachers’ dispositions towards critical teaching. Interchange, 44(1/2), 129-147 Nobre, V. & Villas Boas, I. (2020). Getting Into ELT Assessment. National Geographic Learning. Cengage.

References

119

Oikonomou, K. (1966). Ένα θεωρητικό μοντέλο για τη διδασκαλία Γλώσσας στη Δευτεροβάθμια Εκπαίδευση [A Theoretical Model for Language Teaching in Secondary Education]. Γλώσσα, τ.38, 50-61. Pantazis, S. & Sakellariou, M. (2005). Η προοπτική της διαθεματικής προσέγγισης της μάθησης στην προσχολική εκπαίδευση. Στα: Πρακτικά του 4ου Πανελλήνιου Συνεδρίου του Τ.Ε.Π.Α. του ΑΠΘ με θέμα: Η διαθεματική προσέγγιση της διδασκαλίας και της μάθησης στην προσχολική και πρώτη σχολική ηλικία. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ελληνικά Γράμματα [The perspective of the interdisciplinary approach to learning in preschool education. In: Proceedings of the 4th Panhellenic Conference of T.E.P.A. of AUTh on: The interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning in preschool and first school age. Thessaloniki: Greek Letters]. Papakonstantinou, P. (2002). Εκπαιδευτικό έργο και αξιολόγηση στο σχολείο: Κριτική ανάλυση, υλικό στήριξη [Educational work and evaluation in school: Critical analysis, support material]. Αθήνα: Έκφραση. Papastylianou, A. & Polychronopoulos, M. (2007). Η επαγγελματική εξουθένωση και η σχέση της με το κοινωνικό άγχος στους εκπαιδευτικούς της πρωτοβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης [Job burnout and its relationship to social stress in primary school teachers]. Νέα Παιδεία, σσ. 40-59. Paraskevopoulou – Kolia, Eu. Al. (2008). “Μεθοδολογία ποιοτικής έρευνας στις κοινωνικές επιστήµες και συνεντεύξεις” [“Qualitative research methodology in the social sciences and interviews”]. Open Education -The Journal for Open and Distance Education and Educational Technology, 4 (1). Open Education ISSN: 1791-9312. Paris, S & Ayres, L. (1994). Becoming Reflective Students and Teachers. American Psychological Association. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: Sage Publications. Pedagogical Institute. (2000). Ενιαο Πλαίσιο Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών για την Πρωτοβάθμια και τη Δευτεροβάθμια Εκπαίδευση [Unified Curriculum Framework for Primary and Secondary Education]. ΥΠΕΠΘ. Perrenoud, Ph. (2006). Évaluations: Réflexions authentiques sur des apprentissages importants. Formation Professionnelle Suisse, 134, 14-18. Piscitello, M. E. (2001). Using rubrics for assessment and evaluation in art. Published master thesis. USA: Saint Xavier University. Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Purkey, S., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementery School Journal, 83 (4), 427- 452. Rae, A., & Cochrane, D. (2008). Listening to Students: How to make written assessment feedback useful. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 217- 230. Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction in: L. B. Resnick (Eds). Knowing, Learning and Instruction: essays in honour of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Robson, C. (2007). Η έρευνα του πραγματικού κόσμου [Real world research], μτφ Β. Νταλάκου & Κ. Βασιλικού). Αθήνα: Guteberg.

120

References

Rock, T. C., Levin, B. L. (2002). Collaborative action research projects: Enhancing preservice teacher development schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29 (1), pp. 7-21. Rolheiser, C., Ross, J. A. (2002). Influences on student cognition about evaluation. Assessment in Education, 9, 81-95. Rousopoulos, G. & Tsigra, M (2010). Γνώση, Έρευνα καı Μεθοδολογíα Έρευνας στıς Επıστήμες [Knowledge, Research and Research Methodology in Science]. Στο Πουρκός, Μ. & Δαφέρμος Μ. (Επιμ.), Ποιοτική έρευνα στις κοινωνικές επιστήμες: Επιστημολογικά, Μεθοδολογικά και Ηθικά ζητήματα [Qualitative research in the social sciences: Epistemological, Methodological and Ethical issues]. Αθήνα: Τόπος. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10, 1-10. Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6(2), 36–40. Sakellariou, M. (2002). Τα παιδιά της προσχολικής ηλικίας οργανώνουν τη μάθησή τους. Μύθος ή πραγματικότητα [Preschoolers organize their learning. Myth or reality?]; Στο: Πανταζής, Σ., και Σακελλαρίου, Μ.: Προσχολική Παιδαγωγική: Προβληματισμοί- Προτάσεις [Preschool Pedagogy: Concerns – Suggestions]. Αθήνα: Ατραπός. Sakellariou, M. (2005). (2002). Εισαγωγή στη Διδακτική της Κοινωνικής και Παιδαγωγικής Εργασίας του Νηπιαγωγείου [Introduction to the Didactics of Social and Pedagogical Work of the Kindergarten]. Αθήνα: Ατραπός. Saldaνa, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership 63(3), 66-71. Shepherd, C. & Mullane, A. (2008). Rubrics: The Key to Fairness in Performance Based Assessments. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(9), 27-32. Simonson M., Smaldino, S, Albright, M. and Zvacek, S. (2000). Assessment for distance education (ch 11). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Slavin, R. (2007) Εκπαιδευτική Ψυχολογία. Θεωρία και πράξη. Στο K. M. Κόκκινος (επιμ) Θεωρία και Πράξη. Αθήνα: Μεταίχμιο [Educational psychology. Theory and action. In K. M. Kokkinos (ed.) Theory and Practice. Athens: Metaichmio.]. Stall, L., & Mortimore, P. (1997). In J. White & M. Barber (Eds), School effectiveness and school improvement in: Perspectives on School Effectiveness and School Improvement, London, 9- 24. Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River: NJ Prentice Hall. Stone, B. (1998). Problems, Pitfalls and Benefits of Portfolios, Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 1998, 108-114. Thornton, K., & Yoong, P. (2011). The Role of the Blended Action Learning Facilitator: An Enabler of Learning and a Trusted Inquisitor. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 129-146.

References

121

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory into Practice, 44(3), 262-269. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Torbert, W. R. (1981). Why educational research has been so uneducational: the case for a new model of social science based on collaborative inquiry. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.), Human Inquiry: a sourcebook of new paradigm research (pp. 141152). Chichester: Wiley. Torulf, (2008). Performance Assessment and Authentic Assessment: A Conceptual Analysis of the Literature. 13(4). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1201&context=pare. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286. Trilianos, Th. (1998). Μεθοδολογία της σύγχρονης διδασκαλίας [Methodology of modern teaching]. Αθήνα: Τολίδη. Tsiami, D. (2013). Paulo Freire, Κριτική Παιδαγωγική & Έρευνα Δράσης: Κοινές. προβληματικές και απόψεις [Pedagogical Criticism & Action Research: Common. problematic and views] Action Researcher in Education, τεύχος 4/ Μάρτιος 2013. Tsiolis, G. (2014). Μέθοδοι και Τεχνικές Ανάλυσης στην ποιοτική Κοινωνική Έρευνα [Methods and Techniques of Analysis in Qualitative Social Research]. Αθήνα: Κριτική. Tsui, A. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of SLW 9/2: 147-170. Vamvoukas Μ. (1991). Εισαγωγή στην ψυχοπαιδαγωγική έρευνα και μεθοδολογία. Αθήνα: εκδ. Γρηγόρη, σσ. 90-91, 201. Varsamidou, L. (2012). Αξιολόγηση βάσει φακέλου: ο ρόλος της στην προσωπική ανάπτυξη του μαθητή και την επαγγελματική ανάπτυξη του εκπαιδευτικού. Αδημοσίευτη διδακτορική διατριβή. Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης. Σχολή Επιστημών Αγωγής. Παιδαγωγικό Τμήμα Δημοτικής Εκπαίδευσης [Folder-based assessment: its role in the student's personal development and the teacher's professional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Crete. School of Education. Pedagogical Department of Primary Education]. Vatterott, C. (2015). Rethinking grading: Meaning assessment for standards-based learning. (p. 26-40). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Vougioukas, Α. (1994). Το Γλωσσικό μάθημα στην πρώτη βαθμίδα της νεοελληνικής εκπαίδευσης. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο, Ίδρυμα Μανόλη Τριανταφυλλίδη [The language course in the first level of modern Greek education. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, Manolis Triantaphyllides Foundation.]. Voulimioti, P. & Deligianni, H. (2012). Ο εκπαιδευτικός και η σχολική τάξη Αδημοσίευτη μεταπτυχιακή εργασία [The teacher and the classroom Unpublished master's thesis]. Α.Σ.ΠΑΙ.Τ.Ε., Σαπών. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology: A Methodological Investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3. Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology (pp. 233-344).. New York: Plenum.

122

References

Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable Intervention of Educational research: A Framework for Reconsidering Researcher–Practitioner Cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26, (7): 13- 22. Walvoord, B. E. F., & Anderson, V. J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Willing, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Adventures in theory and method. Berkshire: Open University Press. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Explore the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Woolfolk, A. (2007). Εκπαιδευτική ψυχολογία [Educational psychology]. Μακρή Μπότσαρη Εύη (Ed) . Μετάφραση: Μπαρπάτση Μαρία. Εκδόσεις: Ελλην. Yialom, I. (2006). Θεωρία και Πράξη της Ομαδικής Ψυχοθεραπείας [Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy]. Αθήνα: Άγρα. Zarifis, G. (2009). Ο κριτικός στοχασµός στη µάθηση και εκπαίδευση ενηλίκων. Θεωρητικές προσεγγίσεις και πρακτικές προεκτάσεις. Αθήνα: Παπαζήσης [Critical reflection on Adult Learning and Education. Theoretical approaches and practical implications. Athens: Papazisis.]. Zeichner, K. (2001) Educational action research, in: P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Zoukis, N. (2007): Τρία Ερωτήματα για την έρευνα-δράση και η αναζήτηση νέας προοπτικής. Στο Πρακτικά του Ελληνικού Ινστιτούτου Εφαρμοσμένης Παιδαγωγικής και Εκπαίδευσης (ΕΛΛ.Ι.Ε.Π.ΕΚ.), 4ο Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο με θέμα: “Σχολείο ίσο για Παιδιά άνισα”. [Three Questions for action-research and the search for a new perspective. In the Proceedings of the Hellenic Institute of Applied Pedagogy and Education (HELLIEPEK), 4th Panhellenic Conference on: “School equal for Unequal Children”.]

Internet Sources Avgitidou, S. Η αξιοποίηση των ημερολογίων στην εκπαιδευτική έρευνα-δράση: προϋποθέσεις και διαδικασίες [Utilization of calendars in educational researchaction: conditions and procedures]. Ανακτήθηκε στις 25/5/2012 http://goo.gl/ 3igQU. Chang, M. (2005). The constructivist approach of teaching and portfolio assessment on science teaching, www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/projekte/esera/book/b001-cha.pdf. (5-6-17). Delong, J. 2004. Lecture to the Japanese Association Educators for Human Development. Action Research Implemented in The Grand Erie District School Board: Impact on Teacher Development, Improvement and the Support System Retrieved on 10/11/2016. http://schools.gedsb.net/ar/articles/japan_march_2004.html. D.E.P.P.S. http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/. Retrieved on 5/10/2016. Huot, J. (2007). Un aperçu de l’approche pédagogique basée sur la performance [An overview of the performance-based pedagogical approach]. Retrieved on 17/7/2017 http://fox.nstn.ca/huot/formation/edu-perf.html.

References

123

Koutselini – Ioannidou, M. (2010). Η Έρευνα Δράσης ως εκπαιδευτική διαδικασία ανάπτυξης εκπαιδευτών και Εκπαιδευομένων [Action Research as an educational process for the development of trainers and trainees]. Retrieved on 29/06/2014 http://www.actionresearch.gr/AR/ActionResearch_Vol1/Issue01_02_p0409.pdf. Riel, M. (2010). Understanding action research. Retrieved from Pepperdine University, Center for Collaborative Action Research website: http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ ccar/define.html. Snow, W.M. (1994). The effects of Repetitive Assessment on Academic Achievement and Pupil Self – Esteem. Retrieved on 10/11/2016. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWeb Portal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED362565.

About the Authors Dr. Konstantina Iliopoulou holds a BA in Greek Language and Literature, an MA in Theoretical Linguistics, a PhD in Applied Linguistics, and a Post Doc from Aristotle University. She works as an instructor in the Philosophy and Education department of Aristotle University and as a tutor in the postgraduate program of the University of Nicosia. She has been an external scientific associate of the Centre of Greek Language (Ministry of Education) since 2005. Her research interests include Assessing Greek as an L2, Teaching young learners an L2, Intercultural education, Assessing Writing, Critical literacy, CLIL.

Dr. Alexandra Anastasiadou holds a BA in English Language and Literature and a BA in the Pedagogical Department for Primary Education from Aristotle University, an MEd in TESOL from the Hellenic Open University of Patras, an MA in Cognitive Development from the Pedagogical Department of Western Macedonia, a PhD in Teaching Writing from Aristotle University and a Post Doc from the University of Western Macedonia. She works as an Education coordinator for EFL teachers-teacher trainer in the Regional Directorate of Education for Central Macedonia, Greece and as a tutor and dissertation supervisor in the postgraduate program of the Hellenic Open University in Patras. Her research interests include Teaching writing, Teaching young learners, Curriculum design, Teacher Training, Critical literacy, Assessment, CLIL.

Dr. Georgia Karountzou holds a PhD in Intercultural Education, a BA in Pedagogic from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, an MA in Human Rights from the UCL University of London and an MEd in Educational Studies from the Hellenic Open University (HOU). She has conducted research in the fields of Intercultural Education, stereotypes and prejudices as well as in bullying and cyber-bullying. She is the former Director of Scientific and Pedagogical Guidance in Primary Education, Peloponnese School Counsellor, where she guided and supported the work of

126

About the Authors

all School Consultants of Peloponnese. She is currently an Education Teaching Coordinator.

Dr. Vasilios Zorbas obtained his BA and MA in English Literature from New York University. He then furthered his graduate studies at the English department of Columbia University (Teachers College) where he both pursued an EdM in TESOL and completed his graduate work with an EdD in English Education specializing in Educational Drama. He taught English language, literature and drama courses to native speakers as well as ELL students on a secondary education level in the USA for over a decade and supervised many pre-service student teachers. He was also a research associate at the Research Centre for English Language Teaching, Testing and Assessment (RCeL) of the University of Athens. Currently he is a lecturer in two graduate (MEd) programs at the Open University of Patras: 1) TESOL and 2) Language Education for Refugees and Migrants. His main research interests are: Drama in Education, Alternative Forms of Assessment, Curriculum Design and Teacher Education, Qualitative Research. He has published related papers in local and international journals.

Index

A academic potential, viii action research, ix, x, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 79, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 112, 113, 117, 120, 122, 123 assessment procedures, 49 assessment techniques, 52, 101 assessment tools, 41, 58, 95, 97 asylum, 65 attitudes, 3, 12, 26, 34, 35, 36, 38, 43, 63, 70, 78, 81, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93 awareness, 11, 21, 22, 26, 33, 58, 82

B basic needs, 47 behaviorism, 92 behaviors, 41, 47, 83 benefits, 8, 28, 29, 67, 81, 113 bias, x, 79, 82

C challenges, 56, 67, 91, 92, 95, 97, 113 citizens, vii, 72 classroom teacher, 42 cognition, 26, 111, 113, 120 cognitive level, 26, 89 cognitive skills, 22, 48 collaboration, 16, 23, 49, 58, 61, 67, 73, 75, 88, 89, 93, 96, 97 communication, viii, 4, 16, 23, 38, 55, 68, 79, 81, 94, 98, 107

communication method, viii cooperative learning, 11, 15 creativity, 5, 52, 83, 101 critical pedagogy of peace, x critical thinking, viii, 4, 7, 11, 22, 28, 33, 41, 47, 52, 81, 91, 93, 101 criticism, 28, 30, 35, 80, 82, 101 cultural tradition, 64 culture, 39, 44, 80, 93, 99, 103, 113 curricula, 28, 101 curriculum, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 34, 47, 56, 99, 101, 112 cycles, 40, 41, 50, 71, 89 cyclical process, 17

D democracy, 93 democratic organization, vii depth, 35, 81, 95, 96 deviation, 83 disposition, 100 distance education, 120 dyslexia, 55

E education, vii, viii, 3, 4, 7, 16, 21, 25, 26, 29, 42, 45, 46, 48, 59, 70, 91, 93, 99, 101, 111, 112, 113, 115, 125 education reform, 26 educational assessment, 114, 115 educational practices, 26, 90, 103 educational process, 10, 22, 43, 44, 45 educational research, ix, x, 4, 21, 26, 28, 96, 102, 121

128 educational settings, 21 educational system, viii, 4, 6, 29 educators, 8, 19, 26, 90, 117 emancipation, x, 21 empowerment, ix, x, 28, 71, 97, 100 English Language, 125, 126 equality, viii, 100 equity, 115 everyday life, 74, 93 extrinsic motivation, 53

F facilitators, 27 financial, 21, 84 financial resources, 84 flexibility, 53, 88, 97 foreign language, 7 formal education, 103 formation, 58, 59, 91, 122 free will, 30 freedom, 58

G grades, vii, 10, 17, 18, 19, 42, 45, 53, 57, 61, 69, 79, 82, 83, 85, 117 grading, 8, 19, 46, 50, 54, 57, 66, 67, 69, 71, 92, 97, 121, 122 Greece, 69, 125 Greek language, viii, ix, 16, 33, 38, 47, 71, 97 group work, 39, 59 guidance, viii, 5, 67, 91, 106, 108, 121 guidelines, 18, 69, 72

H handwriting, 55 high school, viii, 16, 93 higher education, 115 history, 48, 96 homework, 9, 37 humanistic perspective, 5 hybrid, 93

Index I immigrants, 65 improvement of school performance, vii independence, 70 individual abilities, viii individual characteristics, 93 individual differences, vii individuals, 21, 35, 44, 102 ineffectiveness, 99 inequality, 23 infrastructure, 7, 46 intervention, 25, 34, 36, 47, 52, 56, 63, 78, 82, 87, 88, 90, 97, 102 intimidation, 83, 85 intrinsic motivation, 53

J junior high school, 18, 47, 52 justification, 10

K kindergarten, viii knowledge acquisition, 77

L lack of confidence, 103 language acquisition, 73 language skills, 67 languages, 15, 64 learners, vii, viii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 26, 33, 34, 36, 39, 93, 112, 125 learning, vii, ix, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 37, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 58, 59, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 76, 77, 80, 84, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 121, 122 learning difficulties, 26 learning environment, 34 learning outcomes, 6, 8, 47 learning process, vii, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 29, 34, 46, 53, 63, 66, 76, 92, 108

Index linguistic skills, vii literacy, 112, 113, 125

129

quantification, 83

R M majority, 17, 80 management, 25, 44, 91 materials, 6, 37, 70 mental actions, 58 metacognitive skills, 26 methodology, ix, x, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 73, 93, 95 misconceptions, 46 models, 59, 89, 115 motivation, 5, 10, 12, 15, 53, 65, 79, 114

O objectivity, 23, 63, 90 opportunities, 16, 34, 58, 88, 91, 100 oral language, viii, 17 oral presentations, 62, 73 organize, 4, 101, 108

P participants, x, 11, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 73, 89, 90, 93, 98, 102, 103 pedagogy, x, 4, 21, 33, 91, 112, 118 peer assessment, 9, 11, 12, 61, 62, 63, 66, 70 personal development, 44, 51, 63, 81, 85 principles, 16, 81, 88, 92, 98, 100, 102, 107, 113 problem solving, 4, 7, 67, 68 professional development, 25, 28, 48, 51, 71, 82, 94, 95, 97, 99, 114 professionals, 23, 24, 27 project, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 58, 63, 65, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 82, 84, 92, 103, 115, 117 psychology, 113, 122

Q qualitative research, 35, 115, 120, 122

reading, 7, 15, 41, 82, 89 reality, vii, ix, x, 17, 21, 35, 44, 46, 49, 74, 84, 85, 88, 91, 96, 101, 103 reasoning, 4, 23, 25, 47 reflective practice, 25, 117 rejection, 23, 83, 84 reliability, 9, 12, 89, 113, 120 researchers, ix, x, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 90, 97, 98, 99, 102 resistance, 22, 49, 66, 84, 92 rubrics, 7, 8, 39, 70, 88, 111, 115, 118, 119 rules, 4, 16, 21, 26, 84, 100, 107

S school performance, vii, 42, 75, 89 self-assessment, 12, 16, 17, 51, 59, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 82, 85, 100, 103, 112, 113, 120 self-awareness, 25, 67, 76, 89, 117 self-confidence, 34, 72 self-esteem, 11, 41, 79 self-improvement, 72, 80, 97 self-knowledge, 25, 102 self-reflection, 8, 26, 28, 36, 99, 100 semi-structured interviews, 11, 35 social change, 22, 28, 100 social context, ix, 28, 100 social justice, 22, 92 social relationships, 11, 22 social skills, 10, 68, 71 society, viii, x, 16, 22, 23, 25, 34, 56, 65, 68, 77, 90, 99 socioeconomic background, 42 sociopolitical reality, vii sociopolitical structures, vii speech, viii, 16, 38, 52, 57, 60, 62, 73, 76, 106, 107, 109 spelling, 52, 53, 54, 107 stereotypes, 22, 125 student achievement, 115, 117

130 student evaluation, vii, 3, 7, 9 student performance, vii, x, 19, 81, 83, 122 student teacher, 126 student-centered, viii, 70, 120

T teacher assessment, 113 teachers, vii, viii, x, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 56, 62, 69, 78, 79, 83, 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 115, 118, 119, 125 team members, 42, 108

Index teams, 61, 68 techniques, x, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 25, 34, 39, 56, 59, 62, 73 technology, 68, 74, 75 testing, 7, 80, 122 thoughts, 40, 51, 57, 74, 89, 91, 97 traditional practices, 4 training, viii, 9, 25, 79, 80, 88, 95 traits, 11, 16 transformation, ix, 21, 22, 41, 91, 93, 96, 99 traumatic experiences, 63