Assessing student learning through classroom practices

Journal of Education and Practice
www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.21, 2016
1
Assessment, Student Learning and Classroom Practice: A
Review
Dr. Ekua Tekyiwa Amua-Sekyi
Department of Arts & Social Sciences Education
University of Cape Coast
Abstract
Assessment in its various forms has always been a central part
of educational practice. Evidence gleaned from
the empirical literature suggests that assessment, especially
high stakes external assessment has effect on how
teachers teach and consequently, how students learn. Through
focus group discussions, this paper draws upon
the experiences of 12 tutors and 18 student-teachers in 3

colleges of education in Ghana. The findings show that
although teachers are expected to nurture evaluative thinking
skills in their pupils/students this is not reflected in
the assessment and teaching and learning practices of student-
teachers. This paper argues that for teachers to be
effective in promoting the desired goals of the basic school
curriculum, greater recognition must be accorded to
the influence of assessment on teaching and learning, the
understanding of which could arguably play an
important role in introducing changes that will promote the
cognitive processes and thinking skills desired in our
schools and classrooms.
Keywords: Assessment, teaching and learning, teacher training,
classroom practice
1. Introduction
Assessment is about learning. Traditionally assessment is
intended to find out and report on what has been learnt
thus its relation with classroom activities. Assessment is
integral to teaching and learning activities in school and
mediates the interaction between teachers and students in the
classroom. Assessment can be defined as all
activities that teachers and students undertake to get
information that can be used to alter teaching and learning.

This includes teacher observation and analysis of student work
(homework, tests, essays, reports, practical
procedures and classroom discussion of issues). All these are
concerned with sampling what a student may or
may not know. Assessment is also used in ‘selecting,
controlling or motivating students, and to satisfy public
expectations as to standards and accountability’ (Biggs, 2003;
p.141). Consequently, assessment has been
categorised as formative or summa tive depending on how the
results are used (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009).
Formative assessment is embedded in the teaching and learning
process and provides feedback to the teacher in
the course of teaching to enable him or her judge how well
students are learning. It also provides information on
the effectiveness of teaching which will help to determine an
appropriate remedial action where necessary. For
this reason, it is appropriately referred to as assessment for
learning. Summative assessment takes place at the
end of a course or programme to determine the level of
students’ achievement or how well a programme has
performed. It often takes the form of external examinations or
tests and is referred to as assessment of learning.
Students spend a relatively large part of their time in school
practising the kind of knowledge and skills

demanded in assessment and this is what they acquire.
1.1 Formative and Summative Assessment
Formative assessment takes place when teachers and students
respond to students’ work, making judgements
about what is good learning with feedback [information about
how the student’s present state of learning and
performance (actual outcome) relates to goals and standards
(desired outcome)] from this dialogue being used to
improve the learning experience of the student (Nicol, 2009;
Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Formative
feedback is therefore exploratory, provisional and aims at
prompting further engagement from the students as
part of an on-going dialogue between and amongst students and
teachers (Pryor & Croussand, 2008; Attwood,
2009). This implies that the feedback process in the learning
cycle commences with the production and
submission of student work, followed by teacher assessment of
the work and feedback provision on it.
Consequently, formative assessment and feedback involves a
much more dialogic form of language, often
moved away from the traditional classroom interaction where
the teacher initiates, students respond and teacher

gives feedback (IRF) to one which more approximates
conversation (Pryor & Croussand, 2008).
The teacher and the student are often in a hierarchical
relationship that inhibits collaboration in their
learning. The opportunity for dialogue that formative feedback
promotes breaks that linear transfer of knowledge
associated with the hierarchical relationship between the teacher
and student and engenders deep learning.
Feedback as dialogue means that the student not only receives
initial feedback information, but also has the
opportunity to engage the teacher in discussion about that
feedback (Laurillard, 2002). As Nicol & Macfarlane-
Dick (2006) point out, good feedback practice is not only about
providing accessible and usable information that
helps students to improve their learning. It is also about
providing good information to teachers:
The act of assessing has an effect on the assessor as
well as the student.
Assessors learn about the extent to which they
[students] have developed
www.iiste.org

Vol.7, No.21, 2016
2
expertise and can tailor their teaching accordingly
(Yorke, 2003, p. 482).
The idea that dialogue is fundamental to successful learning and
teaching is well documented in the
educational literature and many researchers have acknowledged
that formative assessment can play a central role
in shaping and improving the effectiveness of the teaching
learning experience (Covic & Jones, 2008; Bloxham
& Boyd, 2007).
Summative assessment on the other hand, creates tests, marks,
academic reports and qualifications
which are socially highly valued (Biggs, 2003). Summative
assessment events are usually designed to help
make a (final) judgement about a learner’s achievement on a
programme and potential subsequent achievement;
certify achievement and award a qualification; help make
decisions about entry to other learning programmes;
provide information that will help others make selection
decisions and provide formal evidence of a learner’s
competence (Awoniyi & Fletcher, 2014). Education is therefore

largely controlled by assessment, especially
summative assessment as a result of the ways in which the
results are used. Where the stakes attached to the
assessment are high, they influence “what is taught, how it is
taught, what is learned and how it is learned”
(Stobart, 2008; Luxia, 2007; Paige, 2006), as teachers and
students will align teaching and learning to their form
and content to meet its demands. DeCesare (2002) describes
high stakes assessments as tests designed to
measure not only the achievement of students, but also of
teachers and schools. The literature on the discourse
on assessment shows consensus among both critics and
proponents about the controlling influence of high-stakes
external assessment on teaching and learning and its potential to
change the way teachers teach in spite of any
official policy to the contrary. Concerns about the quality of
education have to do with teaching and learning,
but a lot more to do with the nature of assessment, especially
high-stakes external assessment. This supports the
argument that if teaching to the test can have effects on
learning, it is important to ensure that the intended
knowledge and skills are what the tests direct students to
practise as they prepare to take the tests. In that case,
teaching to the test will produce the desired effect on students’

learning (Ghana National Association of
Teachers (GNAT, 2006, p. iv).
2. Context
Educational reforms in Ghana aimed at addressing the perceived
falling standard or quality of education
considered assessment as a major factor affecting quality. The
end of cycle external examinations was believed
to inhibit quality educational delivery. Consequently, refor ms in
1987, involved the restructuring of the content
and the assessment regime. Three external assessments namely,
the Common Entrance Examination (CEE)
written after the sixth year of schooling, the General Certificate
of Education Ordinary level examination (GCE
O’ level) written after the eleventh year of schooling and the
General Certificate of Education Advanced level
examination (GCE A’ Level) written after the thirteenth year of
schooling were replaced with the end-of-cycle
Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) after the ninth
year of schooling and West African Secondary
School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) after the twelfth
year of schooling for junior and senior high schools
respectively. This restructuring reduced summative assessment
levels in pre tertiary education and created room

for more formative assessment in the curriculum in the form of
continuous assessment to improve students’
learning experience. However, the abysmal performance of
students in the first BECE in 1990 generated an on-
going public debate about the quality of basic education in the
public school system which resulted in another
educational reform in 2007. This reform sensed the need for a
shift enabling a move from a notion of learning as
primarily a process of storing and reproducing knowledge,
which stakeholders blamed on the nature of external
assessment (GNAT, 2006), to the nurturing of higher order
thinking and problem solving skills that will enable
students to apply knowledge. Consequently, the concept
‘profile dimensions’ was introduced in the curriculum
of pre tertiary education (Ministry of Education, 2004).
The concept ‘profile dimensions’ presented as a taxonomy of
learning (Bloom et al., 1971), has been
made central to the teaching syllabus of all subjects and is the
prime focus of teaching and assessment from basic
school (primary and junior secondary school) to secondary
school. The dimension weighting for knowledge and
understanding is 40%, as against 60% weighting for the higher
levels of application, analysis, synthesis and

evaluation, summarily referred to as Use of knowledge or
Application of knowledge. It requires teachers to
promote evaluative thinking in their classrooms. However, the
revised teaching syllabi for basic and senior
secondary schools published in 2012 admonished teachers for
not promoting evaluative thinking in their
classrooms as expected:
It has been realized unfortunately that schools still
teach the low ability
thinking skills of knowledge and understanding and
ignore the higher
ability thinking skills. Instruction in most cases has
tended to stress
knowledge acquisition to the detriment of the higher
quality behaviours
such as application, analysis etc. The persistence of this
situation in the
school system means that students will only do well on
recall items and
questions and perform poorly on questions that require
higher ability
www.iiste.org

Vol.7, No.21, 2016
3
thinking skills. For there to be a change in the quality of
people who go
through the school system students should be encouraged
to apply their
knowledge, develop analytical skills, develop plans,
generate new and
creative ideas and solutions, and use their knowledge in a
variety of ways
.... (subject focus is addressed from here). For example,
solve
mathematical problems (Ministry of Education, 2012, p.
xvi), or deal with
learning problems and issues in their lives (Ministry of
Education, 2012a, p.vii).
Subsequent revised syllabi emphasise the importance of
developing evaluative thinking and remind
teachers to promote evaluative thinking in their classrooms. For
teachers to foster evaluative thinking in their
pupils/students, they must have developed and practiced the

knowledge and skills involved while in training.
This begs the question whether teachers in training are being
prepared to meet this curriculum demand in their
classrooms. Teachers can only give what they have. Since
assessment mediates the interaction between teachers
and students in the classroom, and the kind of knowledge and
skills demanded in assessments are what students
spend a large part of their time in school practising and
therefore learn and acquire, the purpose of this study is to
examine the assessment practices in colleges of education to
find out whether student- teachers are being
adequately prepared to meet the demands of profile dimensions
in the basic school curriculum. Research
questions that direct this study are:
What is the nature of assessment practices in colleges of
education?
How is formative feedback used to direct evaluative thinking?
To what extent do summative assessment instruments foster
evaluative thinking in student teachers?
3. Method
A case study of colleges of education was undertaken. This
involved focus group interviews with tutors and
students and a qualitative analysis of the end of semester

examination questions. The objective of the interviews
with tutors was to get them to talk freely about their assessment
practices. Focus group interviews with students
were to give them a voice and an opportunity to share their
ideas and experiences on assessment (Cousin, 2009).
The population of the study was the 38 public colleges of
education in Ghana. The 38 public colleges are made
up of 8 female colleges, one male college and 29 mixed
colleges. The male college was purposively sampled and
one female college and a mixed college were randomly selected
for the study using the lottery method. Four
tutors, including the assessment officer of each college sampled
participated in the study. In all cases contact
with participants was facilitated by the Assessment Officer of
the college. Six second year students made up of
three men and three women (mostly course representatives and
prefects) were purposively selected from each
college to participate in focus group interviews. The second
year cohort was selected because they have had one
year of college experience. Moreover, the first year students
were new to the college experience and the third
year students were out practising teaching in basic schools. A
total of 12 tutors and 18 students participated in
interviews. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes.

The interviews were guided by semi-structured
interview schedules. They were structured to the extent that
each focus group of tutors and students was asked
the same questions, and interviewed under the same conditions.
They were semi-structured to the extent that the
researcher was free to probe and explore in depth participants’
responses to each of the questions.
3.1. Analysis of Data and Interpretation
Data analysis included repeated review of all interview
transcripts. The constant comparative method was
employed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Bloom’s et al.’s (1971)
taxonomy of educational objectives was used to
classify the cognitive demands of the items in the end of
semester examination questions into knowledge and
comprehension on one hand, and analysis, application, synthesis
and evaluation on the other hand. The findings
are discussed in line with the research questions.
4. Findings and Discussion
4.1. What is the nature of assessment practices in colleges of
education?
Tutors and students in different colleges described similar
assessment routines which showed that individual

tutors organised various formative assessment tests, and the
college organised a mid-semester test or mock
examination:
“We have two quizzes per semester ... class exercises ...
assignments ... presentations ... mid-semester
or mock examinations.” (tutor and student focus groups).
From these descriptions it is clear that students are taken
through a potpourri of assessments during the semester.
The notion that apart from the institution-wide mid-semester
examinations, tutors have the prerogative to
determine what, how and when to assess students within the
semester resonated in interviews:
“we may give different assessments at different times
but by the end of
the semester all students experience the same
assessments”. (Focus groups, tutors).
www.iiste.org
Vol.7, No.21, 2016

4
Tutors agreed they put the different types of assessment
together as formative/continuous assessment which
accounts for 40% of students’ marks. This implies that tutors
have the opportunity to use feedback from
formative assessment to improve their students’ learning
experiences (Nicol, 2009; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick,
2006). The critical issue here therefore is the extent to which
tutors engage student- teachers in feedback
dialogue that will enable them to practise the evaluative
thinking they are required to foster in their classrooms
upon graduation. The shift in focus on nurturing evaluative
thinking in pupils/students has profound implications
for the way in which teachers support learning and organise
assessments. I recognise therefore with Black &
Wiliam’s (2006) description of the demanding nature of such
renegotiation of teacher and student relations in the
context of formative assessment and note how teachers’ own
previous learning experiences count a great deal
more than policy directives.
4.2. How is formative feedback on assessment used to direct
evaluative thinking?
The use of “formative feedback to draw students’ attention to

their strengths and weaknesses” resonated strongly
in interviews with both tutors and students. This suggests that
tutors remain very much in control with feedback
focusing on correcting mistakes rather than prompting further
engagement on work done:
“After they (tutors) mark our work and return our books,
they discuss our
work with us and point out our strengths and
weaknesses” (students, all
focus groups).
Feedback that supports student learning engages both students
and teachers in a dialogue on students’
work (Attwood, 2009; Pryor & Crossouard, 2008). However,
what both tutors and students describe does not
suggest the presence of feedback dialogue. It appears that
feedback is still generally conceptualised as a
transmission process, controlled by and seen as the
responsibility of teachers who tell students about what is
right and what is wrong in their academic work, about its
strengths and weaknesses. Feedback as a transmission
process involving ‘telling’ ignores the active role the student
must play in constructing meaning from feedback
messages, and developing critical thinking and evaluative skills
in the process (Covic & Jones, 2008). If

feedback from formative assessment is exclusively in the hands
of tutors, then it is difficult to see how student-
teachers can develop the critical thinking skills that will
empower them to foster evaluative thinking of their
pupils/students in the classroom. An agricultural science student
described how his tutors get them to relate
issues with what goes on in the environment and encourage
them to think critically. From his description, the
point of departure is what one might describe as a kind of
scaffolding whereby the teacher plays a crucial role in
enabling learners to do with help that which they would not
have been able to do alone (Pryor & Crossouard,
2008).
Some tutors noted how: “students’ fail to engage in discussions
about their work when we try to get
them to talk”. They however corroborated students’ views that:
“we don’t get our assignments on time ... sometimes
after other topics
have been covered ...”
What tutors identified as a weakness in their students is indeed
a failure on their part to create and make
the most of opportunities for formative feedback. When
feedback on students’ work is delayed, it loses its

relevance. Feedback provided has to be useful to the recipient
and feedback is only useful when provided
quickly enough and acted upon to improve students’ work and
learning (Covic & Jones, 2008; Nicol &
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). This implies that the ability of the
student to take on board the advice offered by
formative feedback from assessment is crucial to feedback
having an impact on the ability of the student to
improve.
Tutors described dialogic feedback on formative assessment as
challenging due to student staff ratios
and workload: “so we grade students and discuss their
performance in general”. This practice undermines the
process of learning that is dependent upon feedback which
serves to inform and guide students during their
studies. Feedback in the form of grades is noted to encourage
students to focus on performance goals (passing
the test) rather than learning goals (understanding the subject).
This leads students to compare themselves
against others rather than focus on the difficulties in the task
and on making efforts to improve (Attwood, 2009).
Generally, tutors lamented about the structure of the
programme:

“Everything is exams, exams, exams ... we have content
to cover and
students are learning to pass their exams”.
Tutors seem to feel pressed for time to address all that they
want to in a course. The compulsion to
cover content is noted as one of the greatest barriers to effective
teaching. Considering the wide ranging
influence of high stakes summative external assessment on
classroom practise and the entire education system
(see Stobart, 2008; Luxia, 2007; Paige, 2006), it is important to
take a look at the nature of the instruments in the
end of semester examination that are at the centre of this
influence.
www.iiste.org
Vol.7, No.21, 2016
5
4.3. To what extent do summative assessment instruments foster

evaluative thinking in student-teachers?
An analysis of questions presented in the 2014 end of semester
examination showed that multiple type test and
questions that demand true or false answers dominate objective
questions (80%). Questions that required short
answers accounted for only19% as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of examination questions - Section ‘A’
(objectives test)
Number of items Average Percentage
Multiple type test 702 17.1 65.3
True/False 157 3.8 14.5
Matching type test 14 0.3 1.1
Short Answer 206 5 19.1
Total 1079 26.2 100
The essay component of the examination questions was not
different. Based on Bloom et al.’s (1971)
taxonomy of learning, the findings showed that test questions
on essays mostly demanded knowledge and
comprehension (80%) at the expense of the desired learning
objectives of analysis, application and synthesis
(20%) in basic schools. Questions that demand evaluative
thinking were absent as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Types of Examination Questions - Section ‘B’ (Essay
Test)
Levels of test items Number of items Average Percentage
Knowledge 182 4.3 38.4
Comprehension 195 4.6 41.1
Application 51 1.2 10.7
Analysis 41 1 8.9
Synthesis 5 0.1 0.9
Evaluation - - -
Total 474 11.2 100
Essays are the main way to assess knowledge of a subject area.
With the appropriate use of such terms
as ‘discuss’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘critically analyse’, an essay can be
used to encourage the development of language
skills and more critical understanding of issues (Covic & Jones,
2008). If teachers are being urged to foster
evaluative thinking in their classrooms, they will have to learn
to evaluate issues in their training. The point of
intervention that would possibly enhance the quality of
teachers’ classroom practice may involve taking a critical
look at the teacher training curriculum, the teaching methods

used, and above all, how assessment can be used to
help develop the kind of learning and the higher order thinking
skills and processes required in the basic school
curriculum.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The conclusion drawn from the findings of this study suggest
that the transition in the goal of the basic school
curriculum from a mainly lower level recall cognitive domain to
a much higher thinking and reasoning level is
not reflected in the teaching, learning and assessment of
student- teachers. If formative assessment practices fail
to elicit the ‘multi-party’ dialogue that would encourage
evaluative feedback on student-teachers’ work and
summative assessment does not demand evaluation of issues,
student- teachers will not be equipped with the
knowledge and skills they require to foster evaluative thinking
in their schools and classrooms. The gap between
teacher education and curriculum expectation in basic schools is
a barrier to understanding and facilitating the
sort of engagement that will nurture the evaluative thinking
required. Consequently, the practice of teaching will
not change and the cognitive processes that develop thinking
and problem solving are unlikely to be practised, or

are little understood. The gap can however be controlled if
assessment, teaching and learning are brought into
better alignment with the requirement of the basic school
curriculum.
References
Attwood, R. (2009). Well, what do you know? Times Higher
Education, January 29.
Awoniyi, F. C. & Fletcher, J. A. (2014). The relationship
between senior high school mathematics teacher
characteristics and assessment practices. Journal of Educational
Development and Practice, 4, 21-36
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of
formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.) Assessment
and Learning. London: Sage.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (Eds) (1971).
Handbook on the formative and summative
evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. F. (2007). Developing assessment in
higher education: A practical guide. Berkshire:
Open University Press.

Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in higher education.
London: Routledge.
Covic, T., & Jones, M. K. (2008). Is the essay resubmission
option a formative or summative assessment and
www.iiste.org
Vol.7, No.21, 2016
6
does it matter as long as the grades improve? Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 75–
85.
DeCesare, D. (2002). How high are the stakes in high-stakes
testing? Principal: The Standardized Curriculum,
81(3), 10-12.
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of
research on formative assessments: The limited
scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessments in
education. Practical Assessment Research
and Evaluation, 14(7). Accessed January 12, 2010, from

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=7
Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT) (2006). CCTA
forum: Time with WAEC to assess Public
School Examination System.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A
conversational framework for the effective use of
learning technologies (2nd ed). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Luxia, Q. (2007). Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical
change? Examining the intended washback of the
writing task in a high-stakes English test in China. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy and
Practice, 14(1), 51-74.
Ministry of Education (2012). Teaching syllabus for
Mathematics, primary school 4-6. Accra: Curriculum
Research and Development Division (CRDD).
Ministry of Education (2012). Teaching syllabus for Religious
and Moral Education, junior high school 1-3.
Accra: Curriculum Research and Development Division
(CRDD).
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOE) (October,
2004). White Paper on the report of the Education

Reform Review Committee.
Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation:
Enhancing achievement in the first year using
technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
34(3), 335-352.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative
assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and
seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Paige, R. (2006). No child left behind: The ongoing movement
for public education reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 76(4), 1-10.
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). 'A socio-cultural
theorisation of formative assessment'. Oxford Review of
Education, 34(1), 1-20.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of
assessment. Oxon, Routledge.
Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage
educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade
of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Curriculum
Change, 10, 211 - 227.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education:
Moves towards theory and the enhancement of

pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.
Lesson Planning:
A Practice of Professional
Responsibility and Development
by Jianping Shen, Sue Poppink,
Yunhuo Cui, and Guorui Fan
The Importance of Lesson Planning
Much has been made of professional development for teachers,
especially in the current era of educational reform, largely
because it can
facilitate teacher learning (Ball 1996; Little 1993). Teachers in
the United
States, it is often argued, need to learn more to teach
effectively. They
need what many refer to as pedagogical content knowledge: not
only
knowledge of the content, subject matter, or discipline,but also
how stu-
dents learn and make sense of various subject matters as well as
peda-

gogical alternatives that enable student learning in particular
subjects
(Grossman 1990; Shulman 1987; Wilson, Shulman, and Richart
1987;
Shulman 1986).
Some observers have argued that a collegial professional
commu-
nity can enable teachers to develop this knowledge within the
context
of their teaching practice. In such a set of conditions, teachers
can
reflect upon, explore, and improve their practice (Grossman,
Wineburg,
and Woolworth 2001; Little 1987; Putnam and Borko 2000;
Wang and
Paine 2003). Researchers have identified multiple tasks that
teachers can
undertake in these professional communities: in particular,
examining
student work, examining others’ teaching with videos, and
studying mul-
tiple subject matters as a group.
One often-overlooked source of professional growth is the
develop-
ment of lesson plans, which are used in China as tools both for
personal
reflection and development as well as for collegial reflection.
Heaton
(2000) has advocated thorough preparation to accommodate
students
with various levels of prior knowledge of the subject matter and
different
248

questions concerning that knowledge. But few have written
about the
lesson-planning process itself. In the United States, planning
and prepa-
ration are considered important, but lesson plans themselves
seldom
consist of more than a list of activities. Developing lesson plans
is not
often considered a professional-development experience for
individuals,
nor is it set in the context of a professional-learning community
or a
given school.
In China, however, organizational structures for both individual
teachers and a school’s professional community embed lesson
prepara-
tion in two activities: preparing a lesson plan and refining the
plan
through “open lessons.” In an earlier article (Shen, Zhen, and
Poppink
2007), we explained open lessons and how they help teachers to
devel-
op their teaching skills. In this article, we explore not only how
Chinese
teachers develop lesson plans but also how the organizational
structure
of Chinese teaching enables them to use lesson plans as a
professional-
development activity.
Lesson planning allows teachers to explore multiple aspects of
ped-

agogical content knowledge. In developing lesson plans,
teachers have
opportunities to think deeply about the subject matter, including
the
way the subject matter is represented in particular textbooks or
in such
aspects of the curriculum as standards and benchmarks. They
also have
time to develop pedagogical activities or methods that enable
students
to grasp the subject matter. Finally, lesson planners can ponder
what stu-
dents know and how they may best understand the content.
American and Chinese Teachers’ Context of
Professional Work
To summarize the differences in the organization of teaching
between Chinese and American teachers, Su, Qin, and Huang
(2005)
defined a set of activities each group undertakes during the day.
They
found that while the Chinese environment emphasizes
improving
teaching practice with time to reflect and improve, American
teachers
are required to lead their classes six or seven hours a day, with
little
time to reflect or to conduct other activities that could improve
their
practice. Chinese culture, they point out, emphasizes
collectivism,
while American culture favors individualism, as Cohen and
Spillane
(1993) also asserted in discussing American school governance
and its

role in instruction.
In a case study, Su, Qin, and Huang (2005) found that American
teach-
ers’ classroom schedules leave very little time in school to
undertake
activities, including lesson planning, that could improve their
teaching
practice. American teachers have about thirty minutes for lesson
plan-
ning, with almost no time for correcting student class work in
school or
Lesson Planning
249
educational HORIZONS Summer 2007
250
giving homework feedback to the class as a whole or to
individual stu-
dents; a short, isolated lunch break; and few social or
recreational activi-
ties with other teachers, in-school professional-development
activities, or
opportunities to study with colleagues.
Chinese teachers, by contrast, teach only one or two hours a
day, in
one core subject area. Conversely, they spend considerable time
on les-
son planning: two hours a week of formal collaboration with

colleagues
on one core subject, and informally another two hours a day
with col-
leagues on that subject. It also means they have one or two
hours a day
to correct student homework and class work; thirty minutes for
home-
work feedback and work with individual students; forty minutes
of
lunchtime with colleagues and forty to sixty minutes of rest
time; thirty
minutes of recreational time with other teachers; professional -
develop-
ment activities every Friday afternoon; and ninety minutes a
week study-
ing with colleagues.
Lesson Planning by Chinese Teachers
Such differences mean that Chinese teachers consider preparing
for
each lesson a very important responsibility. An elementary
teacher has
at least two periods a day to prepare, and secondary teachers
usually
have even more time available. It is widely held that planning is
a pri-
mary factor in the quality of the lesson.
Textbooks, students, and teaching methods are the three focuses
of
lesson planning. A teacher is expected to study the textbook
thoroughly
to understand the lesson content and its place in the larger
context of
the subject matter. Understanding students’ knowledge of

textbook
contents is also expected. The teacher selects the most
appropriate and
engaging teaching methods based on knowledge of the textbook
and
students.
The process of lesson planning. Careful lesson planning takes
place
at both macro and micro levels. A teacher begins by mapping
out the
content for the whole semester. The teacher then moves on to
planning
for the unit, and finally to each lesson in the unit. There is a
continuum
from semester, to unit, and to each lesson.
An important aspect of lesson planning is emphasizing that the
func-
tion of each lesson can differ. Lessons can focus on introducing
new con-
tent, reviewing materials, or applying what has been learned
through
solving problems. Some traditional steps in planning lessons are
empha-
sized both in pedagogical textbooks and in practice. First, the
teacher
prepares for writing the plan, a process that includes
understanding how
a particular lesson relates to the semester content and the unit;
learning
from professional colleagues’ work by studying their lesson
plans or
seeking input from colleagues; and finding ways to connect the
content

with students’ everyday lives. Second, the teacher writes the
plan. As the
actual lesson plan that follows shows, this step includes (a)
specifying
cognitive and affective objectives; (b) identifying key points of
the con-
tent; (c) anticipating difficult points for students; and (d)
designing the
lesson flow—introducing the topic, presenting the new
knowledge,
strengthening the understanding of new knowledge by
application with
increasing complexity, summarizing the learning, and assigning
home-
work. After preparing and writing a lesson plan, the planning
continues.
For example, the teacher finds or makes the most appropriate
teaching
aids and designs the presentation to display on a projector or
black-
board. A teacher is also expected to take notes after the lesson
for reflec-
tion and improvement. This shows the care with which the
teacher must
attend to lesson planning.
Administrative context for lesson plans. Lesson plans are a
critical
criterion in evaluating teachers. The school provides resources
for plan-
ning lessons, such as preparing a lesson for a group setting,
sharing lesson
plans with different teachers, organizing visits to other schools,
and hold-

ing open lessons to promote learning among teachers. In this
way, the les-
son plan becomes much more than the simple paper exercise it
often is in
the United States—it becomes a larger part of the organization
of teaching
as teachers develop lessons and share them both on paper and in
practice.
Issues in lesson planning. Generally speaking, teachers in China
successfully carry out lesson planning as a professional activity.
However,
lesson planning in China also presents its own difficulties.
First, classes
may have forty students in the developed areas of the countr y
but up to
eighty in those still developing. Individualizing instruction may
be more
difficult in large classes. Second, lesson planning occupies so
much of
the professional day that some teachers feel they could spend
that time
productively on other responsibilities. Third, planning too
extensively
might neglect student learning issues that arise spontaneously in
class. A
fourth issue is that each geographic area in China uses the same
set of
textbooks, so teachers are usually within a few days of teaching
the same
lesson. To a certain extent, this rigidity constrains teachers’
creativity in
designing lesson plans.
An Actual Lesson Plan on the Sum of Measures of
Internal Angles of Polygons

The following is an actual lesson plan prepared by Qing Zhang
of
Weifang Experimental School, Shandong Province, for a lesson
using
Mathematics for the Seventh Grade (for the Second Semester), a
text-
book series published by the East China Normal University
Press. It illus-
trates the format and content of a lesson plan that introduces
new
material. It is common in China to publish compilations of
lesson plans
Lesson Planning
251
and even verbatim transcriptions of actual lessons as a resource
for
teachers. This allows other teachers to examine student
responses to a
particular lesson’s content and methodology.
Instructional Objectives
The cognitive objectives are:
(a) to be able to define a quadrangle, polygon, and regu-
lar polygon, and
(b) to be able to interpret, prove, and calculate the sum
of internal angles of the quadrangle and polygon.

The ability objectives are:
(a) to develop the ability for analogical and divergent
thinking through studying the definition of the poly-
gon and the sum of internal angles of the polygon, and
(b) to develop the ability to diagnose and solve problems
by dividing polygons into triangles and utilizing the
knowledge about triangles.
The affective objective is: to develop students’ interest in
geometry through studying the similarities and differences
between triangles and polygons.
Key Points and Difficult Points
Key points:
(a) the ability to interpret, prove, and calculate the sum of
internal angles of the quadrangle and polygon; and
(b) the ability to investigate a new phenomenon actively.
Difficult point: a student’s understanding that the vertices
of a polygon must be on the same plane, a necessary condi -
tion that is difficult for many students to understand.
Ways to emphasize the key points and teach the difficult
points include:
(a) developing and using teaching aids designed by the
teacher;
(b) facilitating students to think about how to derive geo-
metric theorems;

(c) helping students master both individual sets of
knowledge, as well as helping them realize the rela-
tionship between and among the sets of knowledge;
252
(d) using a table to systematize students’ web of knowl -
edge; and
(e) designing and implementing exercises with increas-
ing levels of difficulty and complexity.
First Stage of the Lesson: Creating a Situation for
Learning
Use multimedia to display a plane view of a weather sta-
tion. Ask students to find triangles, rectangles, squares, paral -
lelograms, and trapezoids. Ask students to use their
knowledge of triangles to define quadrangles and the uses of
quadrangles in agriculture, industry, and everyday life.
Second Stage of the Lesson: Student-centered
Explorations on Definitions of Quadrangles and
Polygons with “n” Sides
(a) Students first recall the definition of a triangle.
Through analogy students try to define a quadrangle.
The teacher uses self-made teaching aids to empha-
size the necessary condition that all four vertices
must be in the same plane. Students then define poly-
gons with “n” sides.

(b) Students then explore the elements in the definitions
of quadrangles and polygons. With teachers’ Socratic
questioning, students complete the following table.
Lesson Planning
253
Definition
How many
sides?
How many
internal angles?
How to notate?
A A A
B
BB C C C
D
D
E
(c) The teacher emphasizes that when quadrangle is
mentioned, we mean (1) rather than (2).
(d) Students answer questions to reinforce their defini -
tion of quadrangles and polygons.

Third Stage of the Lesson: Collaborative Approach to
Exploring the Calculation of Internal Angles of a
Quadrangle
(a) The teacher raises the questions: The sum of meas-
ures of the internal angles of a triangle is 180°; what
is the sum of measures of the internal angles of a
quadrangle?
(b) Students try various methods of answering the ques-
tions, and the teacher summarizes their approaches
using the following diagrams. By comparing methods
(1) through (5), as illustrated in the following, stu-
dents will realize that (1) is the optimal approach.
254
A
n
B
CD
Convex
(1)
A
D
CB

(1)
A
D
CB P
(2)
A
O
D
CB
(3)
A
D
CB
P
(4)
A
P
D
CB
(5)

Concave
(2)
(c) The teacher and students summarize the finding on
the sum of the internal angles of a quadrangle.
(d) Students engage in exercises to deepen their under-
standing of the finding.
Fourth Stage of the Lesson: Exercise with Variations
Students work in groups to solve the following problem.
Please refer to the diagram below. OB�AB. OC�AC. What is
the relationship between �A and �BOC? Please explain
your answer. In the diagram, are there any angles that are the
same as �A in measure?
Fifth Stage of the Lesson: Extrapolating the Findings from
Quadrangles to Polygons
(a) Based on the knowledge that the sum of internal
angles of a quadrangle is 360°, students inquire into
the sum of internal angles of polygons with 5 sides, 6
sides, and n sides.
(b) Draw the conclusion that the sum of internal angles of
polygons with 5 sides, 6 sides, and n sides is (n–2) × 180°.
Last Stage of the Lesson: Summary
(a) Discussing the methods for solving problems: observe,
analyze, guess, analogize, explain, and apply.

(b) Discussing the methods for studying geometrical con-
cepts: how to define, and how to specify the elements
Lesson Planning
255
A
B
C
F
E
O
Number of Sides
of a Polygon
3 4 5 6 7 . . . n
Sum of Internal
Angles
180° 360° . . .
in the definition such as sides, angles, and sum of
internal angles (briefly mention that the sum of
external angles is a topic for future study).
(c) Discussing the thinking processes and methods used
in drawing the conclusion that the sum of internal

angles of a quadrangle is 360°.
(d) Discussing the notion that triangles, quadrangles,
and other polygons are related to each other, and that
geometric knowledge comes from and can be used in
everyday life.
Summary and Discussion
Lesson planning, then, is integral to teachers’ professional
develop-
ment in China: it includes their individual reflection and study
as well as
the collegial activities undertaken to prepare the lesson. In a
case study
written to explain the interaction of the organization of
curriculum and
teaching in China, Wang and Paine (2003) write of one
teacher’s per-
sonal preparation:
In planning this lesson, Ms. Zhen first spent considerable
time reading and analyzing the textbook and teachers’ manual
to understand “what the important and difficult points were,
which area needed to be stressed in teaching, and where stu-
dents would likely make mistakes.” Then she individually
devel-
oped a preliminary lesson plan by considering “how to teach it
in an active way and by involving students in it.” (p. 9)
This quotation shows the importance of content knowledge,
partic-
ularly as it is portrayed in the textbook; understandi ng what
students
will make of the content; and linking the two. It also shows the
careful

study that teachers undertake individually.
Support for this kind of lesson planning is woven into the
structure
of teachers’ work in China in at least two ways. First, as
mentioned ear-
lier, much of a Chinese teacher’s day is spent preparing for
teaching or
reflecting on students’ work and what could have been done
better.
Second, the planning can be used as a part of preparation for a
“public
lesson” (Wang and Paine 2003), or what we refer to as an “open
lesson”
(Shen, Zhen, and Poppink 2007). Wang and Paine continue
analyzing Ms.
Zhen’s lesson preparation by explaining its social aspects:
Next, she shared her lesson plan with several senior mathe-
matics teachers in the teaching research group and revised it
based upon their suggestions. Ms. Zhen then taught a trial les-
son in one of the two 6th grade classes she taught which was
observed and critiqued by her colleagues in the teaching
256
research group. She revised the lesson plan again based upon
her experience in teaching the trial lesson and suggestions from
her colleagues. In the end, she formally taught this public les -
son, which was again observed and critiqued by the teachers in
the teaching research group. (Wang and Paine 2003)

Restructuring American teaching to resemble Chinese teaching
is
unlikely anytime soon. Still, Chinese practice demonstrates that
lesson
planning is an important professional-development activity
requiring
increased teacher knowledge together with collegial support for
improv-
ing practice. Teachers’ individual and collegial planning and
working
time may be a necessary condition to improve the quality of
teaching in
American schools, and detailed lesson plans provide a way for
American
teachers to better understand content, student learning, and
pedagogical
content knowledge.
References
Ball, D. L. 1996. “Teacher Learning and the Mathematics
Reforms: What We Think
We Know and What We Need to Learn.” Phi Delta Kappan 77
(7): 500–508.
Cohen, D. K., and J. P. Spillane. 1993. “Policy and Practice:
The Relations between
Governance and Instruction.” In Designing Coherent Education
Policy:
Improving the System, ed. S. H. Fuhrman, 35–95. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, P. L. 1990. The Making of a Teacher: Teacher
Knowledge and Teacher
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P., S. Wineburg, and S. Woolworth. 2001. “Toward a
Theory of Teacher
Community.” Teachers College Record 103 (6): 942–1012.
Heaton, R. M. 2000. Teaching Mathematics to the New
Standards: Relearning the
Dance. New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J. W. 1987. “Teachers as Colleagues.” In Educators’
Handbook: A Research
Perspective, ed. Virginia Richardson-Koehler. New York:
Longman.
————. 1993. “Teacher’s Professional Development in a
Climate of Educational
Reform.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15 (2):
129–151.
Putnam, R. T., and H. Borko. 2000. “What Do View of
Knowledge and Thinking
Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning?” Educational
Researcher
29 (1): 4–15.
Shen, J., J. Zhen, and S. Poppink. 2007. “Open Lessons: A
Practice to Develop a
Learning Community for Teachers.” Educational Horizons 85
(3): 181–191.
Shulman, L. S. 1986. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge
Growth in Teaching.”
Educational Researcher 15 (2): 4–14.
————. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the
New Reform.”
Harvard Educational Review 57 (1): 1–23.

Su, Z., H. Qin, and T. Huang. 2005. “The Isolated Teacher:
What We Can Learn from
the Chinese.” Wingspread Journal: 7–13.
Wang, J., and L. W. Paine. 2003. “Learning to Teach with
Mandated Curriculum and
Public Examination of Teaching as Contexts.” Teaching and
Teacher Education
19 (1): 75–94.
Wilson, S. M., L. S. Shulman, and A. E. Richart. 1987. “‘150
Different Ways’ of
Lesson Planning
257
Knowing: Representations of Knowledge in Teaching.” In
Exploring Teacher
Thinking, ed. J. Calderhead, 104–124. Sussex: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Jianping Shen, Ph.D., is the John E. Sandberg Professor of
Education
at Western Michigan University.
Sue Poppink, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of educational
leadership
at Western Michigan University.
Yunhuo Cui, Ph.D., is a full professor of curriculum and
instruction
at East China Normal University.

Guorui Fan, Ph.D., is a full professor of educational
administration at
East China Normal University.
This is the second of a two-part series on current practices in
Chinese
education.
258
Index
educational HORIZONS®, Vol. 85, Fall 2006–Summer 2007
259
Fall 2006, No. 1, 1–72
Winter 2007, No. 2, 73–132
Spring 2007, No. 3, 133–192
Summer 2007, No. 4, 193–260
Baratz-Snowden, Joan, ed., 111
Beilke, Jayne R., 210
Bullough, Robert V., Jr., 168
Burt, Walter L., 65
Carpenter, Wade A., 7, 83, 146, 200
Challenges in Data-based Decision-
making: Voices from Principals, 65
Characteristics of an Effective Student
Testing System, 19
Clabaugh, Gary K., 2, 141, 205

Cooley, Van E., 57
Cui, Yunhuo, 248
Darling-Hammond, Linda, ed., 111
Data-based Decision-making: Three
State-level Educational Leadership
Initiatives, 57
Dissolution of Education Knowledge,
The, 232
Education for Free People: Do Public
School-Religious School Differences
Matter?, 194
Fan, Guorui, 248
For Those We Won’t Reach: An
Alternative, 146
Gann, Cory, 12
Good Teacher in Every Classroom, A:
Preparing the Highly Qualified
Teachers Our Children Deserve, 111
Haladyna, Thomas M., 30
Hirsch, E. D., Jr., 97
Is Banning Holidays the Only Way?, 12
Kozol’s Complaint, 210
Late to Class: Social Class and Schooling
in the New Economy, 156
Lesson Planning: A Practice of
Professional Responsibility and
Development, 248

McCarthy, Martha, 92
Miller, Deborah S., 57
Morrison, Kristan A., 212
Most Essential Question, A: Who Is Truly
Educable?, 2
National Academy of Education
Committee on Education, The, 111
Open Lessons: A Practice to Develop a
Learning Community for Teachers,
181
Other Side of Bureaucracy, The, 200
Other Side of No Child Left Behind,
The, 7
Perils of Standardized Achievement
Testing, 30
Phelps, Richard P., 19, 232
Poppink, Sue, 181, 248
Power Failure: Must U.S. School Reform
Miss the Mark?, 205
Professional Learning Communities and
the Eight-Year Study, 168
Rainey, John Mark, 57
Reese, William J., 217
Reeves, Patricia L., 65

260
Rozycki, Edward G., 44, 78, 136, 194
Ryan, Lisa, 57
Schooling as a Fundamental Right:
Should an Equal Education
Amendment Be Enacted?, 141
Shen, Jianping, 57, 181, 248
Should an Equal Education Amendment
Be Enacted? A Discussion, 210
Stoecklin, Carol, 74
Teaching with Fire: Poetry That
Sustains the Courage to Teach
[book review], 74
Testing for Justice, 44
Top Ten Reasons to Eliminate
Foundations Courses from Teacher
Education, 83
Trading Off “Sacred” Values: Why Public
Schools Should Not Try to “Educate,”
136
Using Tests Productively, 97
Van Galen, Jane, 156
Weapon against Cronyism, A? The False
Claims Act Applied to Educational

Institutions, 78
Whistle Blowers Beware!, 92
Why Americans Love to Reform the
Public Schools, 217
Will Corporations Have to Hold a Bake
Sale?, 212
Winograd, Peter N., 57
Yuan, Wenhui, 57
Zhen, Jinzhou, 181
Publishing in educational HORIZONS®
educational HORIZONS seeks to publish in-depth articles,
usually
2,500–5,000 words long, that will interest the reflective,
inquiring
educator. Ordinarily, guest editors assemble each issue of
educa-
tional HORIZONS by invitation. Acceptance of non-invited
submis-
sions depends on unpredictable openings in the schedule.
Querying
us first by first-class letter or e-mail, including your proposed
topic
and length, is recommended before submitting a manuscript.
Book reviewing: Book reviews provide a more likely route to
pub-
lication than the invited, themed contributions outlined above.
Contributors interested in submitting book reviews (including
more substantial book review essays that would review relevant
scholarship on the topic) are encouraged to query by first-class
letter

or e-mail. Proposals, which can be independent of our issue
themes,
should specify recent book releases that will interest our
readership
of teachers and teacher educators.
For guest editors: educational HORIZONS asks potential guest
editors to suggest themes for upcoming issues of the journal.
educational HORIZONS®
P.O. Box 6626
Bloomington, IN 47407-6626
[email protected]
BLOOM'S TAXONOMY
In 1956, Benjamin Bloom
headed a group of
educational psychologists
who developed a
classification of levels of
intellectual behavior
important in learning.
Bloom found that over 95
% of the test questions
students encounter require
them to think only at the
lowest possible level...the
recall of information.

Bloom identified six
levels within the cognitive
domain, from the simple
recall or recognition of
facts, as the lowest level,
through increasingly more
complex and abstract
mental levels, to the
highest order which is
classified as evaluation.
Verb examples that
represent intellectual
activity on each level are
listed here.
1. Knowledge: arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize,
name, order, recognize, relate, recall,
repeat, reproduce state.
2. Comprehension: classify, describe, discuss, explain, express,
identify, indicate, locate, recognize,
report, restate, review, select, translate,
3. Application: apply, choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ,
illustrate, interpret, operate, practice,
schedule, sketch, solve, use, write.
4. Analysis: analyze, appraise, calculate, categorize, compare,
contrast, criticize, differentiate,
discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test.
5. Synthesis: arrange, assemble, collect, compose, construct,
create, design, develop, formulate,
manage, organize, plan, prepare, propose, set up, write.

6. Evaluation: appraise, argue, assess, attach, choose compare,
defend estimate, judge, predict, rate,
core, select, support, value, evaluate.
BLOOM'S TAXONOMY: Sample Questions
As teachers we tend to ask questions in the "knowledge"
catagory 80% to 90% of the time. These
questions are not bad, but using them all the time is. Try to
utilize higher order level of questions. These
questions require much more "brain power" and a more
extensive and elaborate answer. Below are the six
question categories as defined by Bloom.
• KNOWLEDGE
o remembering;
o memorizing;
o recognizing;
o recalling identification and
o recall of information
• COMPREHENSION
o interpreting;
o translating from one medium to another;
o describing in one's own words;
o organization and selection of facts and ideas

• APPLICATION
o problem solving;
o applying information to produce some result;
o use of facts, rules and principles
• ANALYSIS
o subdividing something to show how it is put together;
o finding the underlying structure of a communication;
o identifying motives;
o separation of a whole into component parts
• SYNTHESIS
o creating a unique, original product that may be in verbal form
or a physical object;
o combination of ideas to form a new whole
• EVALUATION
o making value decisions about issues;
o resolving controversies or differences of opinion;

o development of opinions, judgements or decisions
For further Web-based information on Bloom's taxonomy:
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Ta
xonomy
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#t
able
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
Table1. Bloom's Taxonomy
The Cognitive Process Dimension
The Knowledge Dimension
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Factual Knowledge List Summarize Classify Order Rank
Combine
Conceptual Knowledge Describe Interpret Experiment
Explain Assess Plan
Procedural Knowledge Tabulate Predict Calculate
Differentiate Conclude Compose

Meta-Cognitive Knowledge Appropriate Use Execute
Construct Achieve Action Actualize

Assessing student learning through classroom practices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing student learning through classroom practices

Similar to Assessing student learning through classroom practices (20)

More from MerrileeDelvalle969

More from MerrileeDelvalle969 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing student learning through classroom practices