Exploring Comparative Judgement: Professional Learning in Term 4

This term, staff engaged in professional learning focused on comparative judgement – a dynamic and insightful approach to assessing student work. Comparative judgement involves evaluating pairs of student work samples side by side to determine which one is stronger, rather than assigning an absolute score. By repeating this process across multiple pairings, a rank order is created, reflecting the relative quality of all samples. This method not only encourages consistency in assessment but also fosters reflective practice among educators.

Unpacking the Process

The sessions began by immersing staff in the theoretical underpinnings of comparative judgement. Teachers explored its applications and benefits, such as reducing bias, improving reliability, and promoting collaborative assessment. Staff also practiced applying the method to anonymized work samples, refining their ability to focus on criteria and evidence rather than preconceived expectations.

Reflective Questions

Throughout the professional learning, staff reflected on a series of key questions to deepen their understanding and align their practices:

  1. How do the norms in the document compare with your PLT norms? Reflection revealed that many of the norms outlined in the comparative judgement framework resonated with existing Professional Learning Team (PLT) practices. Teachers discussed how integrating these norms could further strengthen their collaborative assessment practices.

  2. What protocols do you presently use for comparative judgement or moderation? Staff shared a range of moderation strategies currently in place, such as calibration sessions, use of rubrics, and group discussions to achieve consensus. Comparative judgement was seen as a complementary approach, offering a fresh perspective that could streamline moderation and enhance the clarity of outcomes.

  3. What do you agree to as your process moving forward with your data wall? The professional learning prompted rich discussions about the role of the data wall in tracking student progress. Staff agreed to adopt comparative judgement as part of their process, ensuring that the data wall reflects nuanced and reliable insights. Clear steps were outlined, including regular moderation cycles and the integration of comparative judgement outcomes into goal-setting discussions.

  4. How does the assessment moderation process filter into your classroom practices? Teachers recognized that robust moderation practices, including comparative judgement, have a direct impact on classroom instruction. By aligning assessment practices with learning objectives, teachers can provide more targeted feedback and support. Comparative judgement was seen as a tool to enhance this alignment, fostering greater transparency and student engagement in the assessment process.

Staff conducted a comparative judgment exercise using two work samples. However, it was later realized that both samples came from the same student. This prompted a discussion about the types of work samples best suited for a data wall, focusing on whether cold writes (unprepared, spontaneous work) or warm writes (prepared, polished work) are more effective. The team explored the benefits of each:

  • Cold writes provide insight into a student’s raw skills and independent thinking under spontaneous conditions. This indicates whether fundamental skills have transferred to mastery.
  • Warm writes showcase how students improve with guidance, feedback, and time, highlighting growth over a learning period.

This reflection will help refine the choice of samples to ensure fairness and clarity in future evaluations.

Moving Forward

As Term 4 draws to a close, staff are committed to embedding comparative judgement into their routines. This will involve:

  • Continuing to refine protocols through regular PLT discussions.

  • Building capacity through peer mentoring and collaborative practice.

  • Leveraging insights from comparative judgement to inform teaching and learning strategies.

This professional learning journey has not only enhanced our understanding of comparative judgement but also reinforced our collective commitment to high-quality assessment practices. By embracing this approach, we aim to ensure that every student’s work is evaluated with fairness, precision, and a shared commitment to excellence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Assessment Waterfall Chart

Image
  The learning Collaborative team engaged with learning around the Assessment Waterfall Chart. We begun by analyzing the purpose of assessment. The learning focused on how every meeting should start with data and ensuring our instructional strategies move students to learning the deeper, broader concepts that sit beyond the context of the activity.   We also contemplated how learners best learn and how this might influence us as teachers of students and each other as professionals. The Assessment Waterfall Chart directly connected to the 5 Questions we ask with Learning Walks and Talks. If students are able to answer the questions then the Waterfall chart is evident. As a Learning Collaborative we discussed the importance of unpacking each section so that our students can become assessment capable learners (an effect size of 1.44).  With staff we shared how The Assessment Waterfall Chart depicts all of the components of assessment as and for learning, NO amount of instruc...
Read more

Revising the Parameter 1 and 14

Image
 Staff were asked to re-reflect on  Parameter 1 and the shared beliefs and understandings articulated by Lyn Sharrat. We had completed this same activity 12 months earlier and wanted to gain a sense of where we were placed collectively. Staff were asked to give a rating from 1 to 10 to indicate how much they believed in each of the statements and were encouraged to give a reason as to why they believed what they did. These ratings and reasons were collected anonymously. Then redistributed. Staff then stood behind the chairs, reading out the rating and reason they had been handed.  The photo below indicates where staff now sit with the statement: All leaders, teachers and students can articulate what they do and why they lead, teach and learn the way they do. The photos below are the staff's reaction to: High expectations and early and ongoing intervention are essential. The photos below are of staff's reaction to: All teachers can teach to high standards given time and th...
Read more

Going back to the Data Wall

Image
The following staff meeting was presented by the Learning Collaborative team. Time was spent selecting students for the next CMM. Teachers completed a Chronicle entry using the Case Management Meeting template on Compass . There was also a d iscussion of support such as Drew’s time (Thursday 9:00am - 10:00am). His time can be booked to release staff for Learning Collaborative engagement and a timetable for purpose and booking was shared.  Kim Post shared how her time has been used by staff and announced her availability continues (Monday to Thursday 9:00am - 11:00am). Staff shared how she had modeled the unpacking of Learning Intentions, co-constructed Success Criteria with students, and coached teachers around the construction of BIU walls and anchor charts that support student learning. Moving forward, she might be utilised as an extra set of hands in training students how to use the wall and effectively find stars and stairs in their own and others work. This staff meeting high...
Read more