Glossary
Chapter 5 Contextualising the Study
5.6. Initiators of learning about new forms of assessment
5.6.1 New Policy Initiatives
With the advocacy of the NCS (DoE, 2002), educators were expected to comply with the expectation of integrating assessment into the process of teaching and learning. This meant that assessment would now form a critical component of the teaching and learning process. A move from summative assessment towards formative means of assessment was what the new assessment policy set out to achieve. This necessitated the employment of both formal and informal means of assessment as a tool to facilitate learning, where various new forms of assessment to assess student learning would be used (Appendix 6).
Adherence to these expectations necessitated the participants‟ familiarising themselves with the new ways of assessing and thereafter implementing these new forms of assessment in their teaching. The departmental expectations outlined above exerted a pervasive influence on teachers acquiring knowledge about and competence in assessment. The manner in which this learning took place and exuded itself in the assessment practices of the participants, were critical areas of focus within the located study.
Kajil felt a considerable amount of pressure in keeping abreast of curriculum reform initiatives. Furthermore, she was firm on adherence to DoE requirements, as evident in the following assertion:
“Changes in curriculum are too rapid to keep pace with, forcing us teachers to change everything we have learnt and knew about assessment and learning. The rule in primary school is pass one, pass all. We cannot fail anyone. Teachers know that they have to work towards preparing all learners to pass, so they are kept on their toes. I do my best to ensure that my assessment tasks are structured in such a way that most learners, if not all, would pass.”
This suggests that Kajil‟s learning about the new ways of assessment has been as a result of external factors; in particular, the introduction of the new assessment policy. Furthermore, it would appear that her assessment practices were largely influenced by the DoE expectations that all learners should pass at primary school level. This would allude to the fact that a
106
strong sense of compliance to DoE expectations seemed to influence the way Kajil assessed in the classroom. Kajil‟s views suggest that from her perspective change was something that is “done to teachers” and therefore to be feared. This created a sense of uneasiness within her with regard to embracing the new, which she viewed as achieved at the expense of discarding the old. By implication, there was a degree of “unlearning” to be done as older habits and procedures were abandoned (Cochran-Smith, 2003).
The feeling of being compelled to incorporate the new assessment forms in her teaching was also shared by Priya. She believed that since the NCS (2002) advocated the use of a variety of assessment forms, she had to incorporate as many forms of assessment that she could in her teaching:
“Well, for one if you look at the NCS documents, there is such a variety of assessment techniques. You have to read the assessment documents and make sense of what is expected. Then you have to try out these different assessment forms with your learners.
It may not be possible to use all new forms of assessment with your class, but start with the ones you feel most comfortable with. You have to keep pace with the changes. It‟s difficult at times, but I do the best I can.”
Neel, on the other hand, differed in that he believed that using assessment forms that he had used in the past still worked well for him, so he did not incorporate many of the new
assessment forms in his teaching:
“Documents have too much content to comprehend. These are also too prescriptive. Going through these are very frustrating and annoying. Principals often insist that teachers must work with the subject policy documents as inspectors will come and check. What are they going to check? When subject advisors visit school they give their own suggestions and they are gone. They can‟t force you to do things. I cross-question them, debate with them or throw back comments and suggestions of my own. This typically results in them
justifying their expectations, by saying that these were coming from National level. Shortly thereafter they leave hurriedly never to return. It‟s like that. I proved that here in this office on more than one occasion.”
107
The above sentiments expressed by Neel reflect a sense that he would not be forced into doing anything that he felt to be uncomfortable. Furthermore, these sentiments allude to the notion of him challenging authority, suggesting an elevated status and a view that ' I am an expert in my field and I will do what I know works best'. Such a line of thinking cultivates a sense that one‟s position in the hierarchy of the institution influences to some extent the nature of learning which the particular individual pursues. In Neel's case he seemed to believe that his position of head of department, coupled with his long service in the field of education and his specialised training in the subject, rendered him an expert in his field. Consequently he felt that no one had a right to question his teaching practices, even if such questioning was in the name of promoting knowledge growth and in this way advancing his professional development.
As the discussion above has alluded to, learning informed by policy can precipitate a variety of chain reactions. It can force teachers into a situation where they merely do the necessary to fulfil policy obligations. Kajil and Priya are two cases in point. These two educators, in an effort to comply with policy regulations, embarked on a process of acquainting themselves with departmental requirements, regarding assessment for promotional purposes.
Furthermore, they tried to incorporate as many of the new assessment forms as possible in their teaching. In this way their learning served the purpose of succumbing to external demands. The implications of adopting such a stance are highlighted in the following:
“... educators seem oblivious of the cultural bias of the present curriculum. They do not think critically about the concepts, aims, approaches, and resources it advocates.
They merely try to transmit the curriculum ... They find themselves accomplices in the cultural genocide, albeit inadvertently.” (Manzini, 2000, p. 21)
Whilst the use of the term “cultural genocide” might be construed as extreme in that it appears to overstate the point that Kajil and Priya respond to external demands of administrators in a conformist manner, the term does serve to highlight the possible
repercussions of adopting an unquestioning and blind compliance attitude towards external initiators of learning.
Alternatively, external initiators of learning could trigger an attitude of non-compliance, where the opposite effect is created. In the case of Neel, he appeared to be less bound by policy requirements and actively resisted the adoption of new assessment initiatives.
108
Furthermore he firmly held onto assessment practices that were still rooted in the past, continuously defending his stance:
“These guys don‟t know what they are doing. Every few years, they come out without something new. That idea doesn‟t work, so they scrap it and try something else, and this pattern continues. We as teachers have to do damage control, as a result of the aftermath of these so called „brilliant changes‟ being instituted. We are constantly being used as guinea- pigs to try out new ideas that don‟t pan out the way policy implementers had intended it to.
We are caught in a vicious web. Quite frankly, I am tired of succumbing to such nonsense.”
While policy initiatives may serve to initiate learning, as alluded to above, policies by themselves don‟t impart new knowledge but rather provide the platform for teachers to pursue additional learning and transform that learning into new practice (Elmore, 1997). In the case of the located study, the new policy initiatives served to trigger a process of learning among the participants as they began to engage with policy documents to make meaning of the new assessment forms that were being advocated. This set the scene for embarking on further learning, which is detailed in Chapter 6.
In addition to the new policy initiatives, being presented with the challenging task of teaching a new subject also served to initiate learning. Such was the case with Priya. An exploration of how such a situation served to initiate learning for this participant is detailed in the section that follows.