In the following section, three artefacts have been selected to explore ways in which

assessment can cater for diversity in the classroom. Additionally explored is how these
artefacts consider standard five of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
(Australian Institute for Teaching School Leadership [AITSL], 2011).

Artefact 1
I was assessing this young girl from Pakistan. She had only come to Australia a few months
earlier with her family... I started assessing her by showing her different coloured blocks and
asked her to label the colours... she gave me this blank look ... I explained that I wanted her
to label the colours and gave her examples of colours like blue, green, black, yellow. She
repeated what I had said; she said blue, green, black, yellow. I was so close to marking her
as not knowing her colours... Her dad came in to pick her up in the afternoon and I explained
to him what had happened... He suggested we quickly sit down and do the assessment again
but this time his daughter would label the colours in their own language and he would
translate... she knew her colours (Dobinson & Buchori, 2016, p. 40)

This first Artefact is set in the context of a formal summative assessment, where a
mark was to be given upon testing the student on her knowledge of colours. It contains
a powerful message with implications for teachers in, essentially, all early learning
contexts, since it was learned in the 2011 consensus that a quarter of the Australian
population had been born overseas and that speakers of a language other than
English accounted for one in five Australians (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014).
Children for whom English is a second language (EAL/D) are significantly
disadvantaged by virtue of their need to learn curriculum content in addition to the
language in which it is taught (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010).

There is much to be learned from this assessment artefact. Firstly, it is common for
bilingual children assessed using monolingual norms to be erroneously considered to
have language development issues and their language knowledge underestimated
(Paradis, 2005; Thordardottir, Rothenberg, Rivard, & Naves, 2009). The concern is
that many teachers use standards to assess EAL/D students that have been designed

for students for whom English is their first language (de Courcy, Adoniou, & Ngoc,
2014). It has been suggested by de Courcy (2015) that this tendency to view progress
homogenously results from the age-related standards set by the Australian Curriculum
(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2016), which
hold

expectations

based on

standards

of students

from

English-speaking

backgrounds. Consequently, before assuming language delays, assessment in

childrens first language should be made and parents interviewed in their native
language to gain insight into the childs use of the home language (Clarke, 2009).
If language delays are suspected, the childs strongest language needs to be
assessed since it is in this language that issue will be apparent (Dpke, 2006). The
mistake often made is that the weaker language is used thereby leading to inaccurate
diagnoses of cognitive and language development (Baker, 2011). It is important that
assessment reflects the dialogue between the teacher, school, and parents, with
interpretation services sought, and positive relationships built to deliver positive
outcomes (Clarke, 2009). Furthermore, children should be understood in the
experiences of their home contexts, with the teacher developing a profile of each child
in relation to their home environment, the languages used, and their cultural identities
and customs (Clarke, 2009).

Artefact 2
Mrs Brotherton wanted to monitor the conversational turn-taking behaviours of Sam,
a boy with severe intellectual disability in her Year 1 class, when working in paired
activities. With 25 students in her class, the most practical method was the incidental
use of anecdotal records during observations as the whole class set about tasks from
various subject areas. It soon became apparent that the target student tended to
respond to his partner, but rarely initiated interactions. Mrs Brotherton took a twopronged approach: she provided Sam with specific modelling to emphasise the
importance of leading into a conversation, and she helped his peer to delay initiating
on some occasions to allow Sam enough time to start the process of interaction
(Arthur-Kelly & Neilands, 2014, p. 233).

This second example, which again requires little commentary on purpose and context,
has the teacher using informal formative assessment to determine the students
capability with respect to a specific aspect of conversational interaction in order to
inform subsequent instruction. The formative strategy Mrs. Brotherton used was
anecdotal records, which are descriptive narratives, pertaining to specific behaviours,
interactions, or progress in relation to learning outcomes, recorded in detail by the
teacher (McFarland, 2008). As was the case in the artefact, recording observations in
this manner provides rich information about individuals and their development, which
can then be used to inform and guide future learning experiences and interventions
(Dodge, 2004). Continually reviewing students learning, progress, and interactions
through anecdotal records and then recalibrating instruction, teaching methods, and
learning content is essential if teachers are to be effective in maximising learning
outcomes (Arthur-Kelly & Neilands, 2014). As in the example, anecdotal records
enable the opportunity to identify specific ways in which students are failing or
struggling in particular areas, and then apply, or plan for, the scaffolding, support or
intervention required to help the child advance (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2011).

In addition to the importance of formative assessment through observation and

anecdotal records, this vignette provides insight into the need for differentiating
students learning needs, particularly for those with special educational needs and
disabilities (SEND). Whereas the majority of students in a class gain from the teachers
core instruction, for some students enhanced instruction is required, while a small
number may require intensive instruction (Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2010). Mrs.
Brothertons assessment and intervention is aligned with what is known as Response
to Intervention (RTI). Broadly described, RTI is the process in which the class is given
core instruction, students progress is assessed, students who fail to progress
appropriately are given further instruction and then assessed, with failure to progress
at this stage then prompting specialised intervention (D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, &
Young, 2003). What is important to consider is that a lack of accurate assessment
may lead to students not receiving the individualised instruction they require, for which
the risk is then that students will be at serious risk of failing to reach learning outcomes
or progress in pivotal areas (Keen & Arthur-Kelly, 2009). In addition to being a tool for

formative assessment, as used in the artefact, anecdotal records can also serve as a
summative assessment tool, where there is a need to communicate in collaboration
with a support team for children with special needs teacher, making recommendations
for individualised support (Boyd-Batstone, 2004). Anecdotal notes can additionally be
reported back to parents through emails, in report cards, or in parent-teacher
interviews (Thomas, Allman, & Beech, 2004).

Artefact 3

(Curtin University, n.d.)

(Tomlinson & Moon, 2013, p. 42)

The third artefact, for which there are two similar pieces, is a diagnostic assessment
used to collect information about students interests prior to beginning a unit. These
forms, called Interest Surveys, enable students to select or rank their preferences
(Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Unsurprisingly,

students interests provide great

motivation for learning, increase engagement, make learning more efficient, and
enhance academic outcomes (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Learners are willing to invest
when content interests them, making it advantageous for teachers to explore students
interests, pique their curiosity, and reveal how their interests connect to matters of
learning (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).
There seem many positives to seeking students interests. However, it is especially
valuable for children with particular forms of SEND. Students with ADHD, for example,
are believed to benefit greatly, since they have a tendency to be disenchanted with
school (Hanks, 2011). Likewise, children with Aspergers Syndrome respond
particularly well centred around their interests (Westwood, 2011), and children with
dyslexia prefer written tasks focussed on their interests (Reid, 2011). More generally,
diagnostic assessments for interest enable teachers to front load unit preparation to

ensure units are suited to learners needs (Oberg, 2010). What is important in planning
is that there is flexibility, where options are available for text and topics (Cheminais,
2009; Knowles, 2010). A successful example of this was demonstrated in a study
undertaken in a diverse school where year three students scored higher results
working with fractions when their favourite music was used to teach the mathematical
principles (Courey, Balogh, Siker, & Paik, 2012).

In reflection, it seems vital to remember the important role students play in the success
of classroom learning. If students are the focal point of teachers work, then it is
important that teachers study their students and their diverse natures and complexities
(Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006), recognising that students are individuals who have
individual interests, and that these can be drawn from to make learning more effective
(Wearmouth, 2009). It seems that the aim should be for teachers to create a classroom
that reflects the realities of the outside worlds from which the students come, making
the classroom environment more meaningful to their individual lives (Cooper & lles,
2015). Most important to remember is that differentiating to students interests and
preferences builds student-teacher relationships where the teacher is trusted as a
partner in successful learning (Tomlinson, 2015).

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

The three artefacts cover each of the five points from Standard Five, Assess, provide
feedback and report on student learning, of the Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers (AITSL, 2011). Following is a brief description of how the points in the
standard were considered in the Artefacts:

5.1, Assess student learning, was addressed through all three artefacts,
whereby each demonstrated a different assessment strategy: Artefact 1,
summative; Artefact 2, formative; and Artefact 3, diagnostic.

5.2, Provide feedback to students on their learning, was addressed most

explicitly in the formative assessment, Artefact 2, which is characteristic of this
form of assessment. However, elements of feedback were present in the other

two artefacts, with feedback to parents an important component in artefact 1,

and feeding forward to shape the unit in Artefact 3.

5.3, Make consistent and comparable judgements, was particularly pertinent

in Artefact 1, where the importance of differentiating judgements in relation to
students performance as bilingual learners rather than judged upon the
standards set based on English-as-a-first-language students.

5.4, Interpret student data, was addressed primarily in the data collected from
the diagnostic assessment, in which students preferences were gathered in
order to modify the unit.

5.5, Report on student achievement, was an important component in both

Artefact 1, where it was seen that reporting and communicating with EAL/D
students parents is vital for accurate assessment; and in Artefact 2, where
anecdotal records are important for reporting to parents, and in the case of
SEND students who require intervention, for their support staff to make
informed decisions.