eder 603.23 l17 - bailey - bridging the gap - final

8/10/2019 EDER 603.23 L17 - Bailey - Bridging the Gap - FINAL

1/19

Running Head: BAILEY !BRIDGING THE GAP 1

Bridging the Gap: Aligning Classroom Assessment with Inquiry!based Learning Experiences

Deirdre Bailey

University of Calgary


2/19

BAILEY !BRIDGING THE GAP 2

Table of Contents

Abstract Page 3

Introduction Page 4

Complexity Page 5

Conversation Page 10

Student Autonomy Page 12

Authenticity Page 14

Conclusion

Page 16

References Page 19


3/19


Abstract

Inquiry!driven teaching practice is increasingly leading schools in a shift away from

transmission!based pedagogy in an e$ort to keep pace with the unprecedented growth of a

digitally driven knowledge based economy. With a renewed focus on collaboration, curation,

creation and critique as part of the learning process, measurement focused classroom

assessment practices are becoming increasingly inadequate. As classroom teaching practices

shift, it is imperative that assessment practices change as well in order to align with a new,

more responsive and less standardized approach to teaching and learning. This paper draws

on research literature in the field of education and assessment in order to identify

competencies developed through inquiry!based pedagogy and underlying connections to

classroom assessment practices that support and acknowledge those competencies. Themes

are brought forward not for the purpose of developing a formula for practice, but in order

to suggest how relevant assessment might emerge from, and amplify the worthwhile work

we undertake in inquiry!based classrooms. The ultimate purpose is to inspire consideration

of how classroom assessment might be best framed in order to both support student

learning and honour the outcomes that inquiry!based learning environments develop.

Keywords: inquiry!based pedagogy; 21st!century learning; problem!based learning;

challenge!based learning; assessment; education reform; assessment reform;


4/19


Bridging the Gap: Aligning Classroom Assessment with Inquiry!based Learning Experiences

As a growing body of research suggests that industrial models of education are

inadequate preparation for the diversity of opportunities and experiences facing 21st century

graduates %Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999&, educational institutions around the world

have been actively reconsidering some deeply!held assumptions about teaching and learning.

Teachers are increasingly designing learning opportunities in which students are challenged

to engage actively with peers and experts in order to achieve a variety of authentic

outcomes. These project!, problem!, challenge!, or design!based learning opportunities ask

students and teachers to address topics in ways that are fundamentally di$erent from the

prescriptive, transmission!based pedagogies of the industrial age. To date however, there

continues to be a significant lag in the connection between changes in teaching methods

and changes in assessment %Rust, 2002, p. 146&. The persisting desire to ascribe arbitrary

values to learning experiences through various units %words, ideas, or points&by allocating

marks poses the greatest risk to meaningful and sustainable education reform.

The term classroom assessment generally brings to mind rows of desks, HB pencils

and multiple choice exams or report cards, sent home as a neatly expressed summary of the

semester. Bulging classrooms, stu$ed schedules and the e'cacy of testing students factual

and procedural recall in order to quantitatively summarize their results have left the

streamlined practice of assigning letter or number grades to varying collections of student

work largely unquestioned, even as teaching practice evolves. While inquiry!based pedagogy

invites students to focus on living, interdependent systems %Friesen & Jardine, 2009&, to

connect with personal experience, and to question; report cards continue to reduce

unmeasured classroom moments to marks. As a result, learning activities in inquiry!based


5/19


classrooms are generally not in accord with assessment %Marzano, Pickering, McTighe,

1993&.

This paper addresses the persistent but for the most part unarticulated discomfort

that many educators feel when attempting to reduce the complexity of the work that takes

place in a classroom to a quantitative value. The intent is to identify salient characteristics

of inquiry!based learning and consider how authentic classroom assessment practices might

emerge from within this pedagogical climate of questioning and investigation. The final

themes outlined in this work are the result of a thoughtful analysis and synthesis of re!

emergent ideas on inquiry and assessment that trace back decades in research literature

connecting diverse disciplines and perspectives. Themes are brought forward not for the

purpose of developing a formula for practice, but in order to inspire further consideration of

how relevant assessment practices might emerge from, and amplify the worthwhile work we

undertake in inquiry!based classrooms.

Complexity

When did we drift into grades of unquestioned provenance becoming the

legitimate currency for the next generation? And why do we succumb to the

notion that because something is easy to calculate it must be pedagogically

sound? %OConnor & Wormeli, 2011, p.44&

Most adults today are familiar with an industrial model of education. Our

experiences with school revolve around a system conceptualized as a mass assembly line and

the e'cient division of labour. By the time we graduate, weve learned to associate learning

with factual and procedural recall, and the process of becoming competent with dividing

things into a very large number of very small steps %Skinner, 1954&. The industrial revolution


6/19


and resulting e'ciency movement e$ectively convinced an entire system of educators that

the best way to understand a topic as a whole was to introduce it in parts.

The reality is that breaking things down might be straightforward and unambiguous,

but it is inauthentic and cognitively counterintuitive %Hale, 2004&. Deep understanding is

not developed through exposure to disassembled fragments whose assembly is dictated

according to generic rules of management and surveillance. Topics, as they live in the world,

do not necessarily subdivide into the specific curriculum disciplines as outlined in a Program

of Studies %Friesen & Jardine, 2009, p. 29&. Rather, they exist as a network of relations and

can only be authentically understood in relation to the world in which they exist.

Introducing something uniform or unidirectional inevitably marginalizes students

and misrepresents the profound diversity and complexity of the ecological world we live in

and the disciplines we teach. Greeno %1991&uses the metaphor of learning the landscape to

compare inquiry!based learning to learning to live in an environment; learning your way

around, what resources are available, and how those resources can be used to conduct

activities productively and enjoyably %p.175&. Inquiry!based practice allows knowledge to be

explored as an intergenerational, sustaining field of relations that one must inhabit in order

to understand %Friesen & Jardine, 2009, p. 27&. As Palmer %1998&writes, good teachers

possess a capacity for (this complexity). They are able to weave a complex web of

connections among themselves, their subjects, and their students so that students can learn

to weave a world for themselves %p. 11&. Teaching that is not hog!tied to rigid specifications

often moves in directions and explores ideas that neither the students nor the teacher could

envision at the outset %Eisner, 1991, p. 46&. Teaching practice that acknowledges living

systems to be by their very nature unpredictable is likely to produce learning that while


7/19


productive and relevant, is unanticipated. The idea that we can presume to dictate, predict

or quantify the fundamental brain shifts associated with exploration of living systems is

therefore, gravely inappropriate. How can we limit assessment to the measurement of a few

particular outcomes when learning is a matter of finding out more and more about an ever!

shifting disciplinary landscape? As Biggs & Tang %2007&suggest, current assessment

practices are as out of place in an inquiry!based environment as measuring sugar in

milligrams, %p. 172&because big decisions about the quality of student work should be made

not on the accumulation of unknowably flawed minor judgments, but on a reasoned and

publicly sustainable judgment about the performance itself %p. 173&.

The critical thinking we expect of students in an inquiry!based environment isnota

generic phenomenon %Friesen & Jardine, 2009, p. 20&that can be assessed formulaically. Just

as the quality of a chefs soup cannot be authentically assessed in a chemistry lab, proper

assessment means giving attention to how a living field of work might make demands on

what it means to think critically within that particular discipline %Friesen & Jardine, 2009&.

While the landscape of a topic is inevitably characterized by key landmarks, big ideas,

strategies, or models that can be assessed as students encounter them through exploration,

these are not sequential, many paths can be taken toward the horizon.... Nor

is the landscape definitive or closed.... New landmarks can appear, and new

paths, uncharted before, can be carved out %Fosnot, & Dolk, 2001, p. 135&.

Reliability is herein a matter of identifying ideas and an approach to investigation

that is authentic to a particular discipline. Validity is a reflection of whether the results of

student investigation into a topic are su'ciently authentic %isomorphic to some reality,

trustworthy&that (they)may trust (themselves)in acting on their implications %Christians,


8/19


2005, p. 120&. Strong assessment practices in an inquiry!based environment thus require a

fundamentally hermeneutic judgement; that is, an understanding of the whole in light of

the parts %Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 184&. As Rubin %1991&writes,

to judge a curriculum purely on the basis of its anatomy !is to err.... It would

be absurd to assume that anyone who used the same oils, palette, brushes and

canvas as Picasso could produce paintings of equal greatness. The excellence

of a work of art or an instructional program depends upon something greater

than the sum of these individual components. %p. 57&

Failure to acknowledge the inherent complexity of inquiry!based learning outcomes

by reducing them instead to isolated segments, rating each independently, and aggregating

them to get a final score under some false conception of reliability, validity or e'ciency is

counter!productive. Its like examining architects on the number of bricks their designs

use, never mind the structure, the function or the aesthetic appeal of the building

itself %Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 175&. If all we ever assess are the number of bricks, we cannot

expect students to invest in quality of design, structure, or function of their wall. Students

are much less likely to spend an entire semester exploring broad disciplinary landscapes if

they know that at the end of the term we will only acknowledge whether they have reached

one landmark in particular %Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993, Biggs & Tang, 2007&.

Conversation

What really matters in the new age isnt information at all. What is really

significant is the relationships between people, and between people and

organizations, that are made possible by the new modes of

communication %Gilbert, 2005 pp.120!121&.


9/19


Inquiry!based practice acknowledges that learning is most e$ective if embedded in

social experience %Gilbert, 2005; Jardine, Cli$ord & Friesen, 2008; Black & Wiliam, 2004 &.

Students engaged in inquiry!based learning typically discuss ideas by talking, and

sometimes arguing, with each other and with the teacher in order to develop new or deeper

understandings of a given topic %Smith, Lee & Newman, 2001, p. 12&. Students and teachers

alike are invested in finding the best way to communicate about what has been achieved and

what to work on next %Black & Wiliam, 2004&. From the teaching perspective, this means:

making space for the other, being aware of the other, paying attention to the

other, honoring the other. It means not rushing to fill our students silenceswith fearful speech of our own and not trying to coerce them into saying

things that we want to hear. It means entering emphatically into the students

world so that he or she perceives you as someone who has the promise of

being able to hear another persons truth. %Palmer, 1998, p. 46&

Conversation strengthens student voice, improves communication between students and

teachers and challenges students to think critically about their own arguments. Students are

regularly expected to explain their thinking orally, learn to develop answers in their entirety

without being prompted, and cultivate an ability to make sound judgments about the

intellectual quality of their work. Students become more active as participants and come to

realize that learning may depend less on their capacity to spot the right answer and more on

their readiness to express and discuss their own understanding %Black & Wiliam, 2004, p.

27&.

As students share their stories in words, as they reflect and explain themselves to

others, they are forced to create and acknowledge meaning through discourse. To reach an

understanding in a dialogue is not merely a matter of putting oneself forward and


10/19


successfully asserting ones own point of view, but of being transformed into a communion

in which we do not remain what we were %Gadamer, 1989, p. 379&. Questions such as why

do you think that?, or how might you express that?, or*in the devils advocate style

*you could argue that extend students thinking and generate immediate feedback on

their work %Black & Wiliam, 2004, p. 27 &. They learn to be accountable to one another and

to their learning.

Authentic assessment in this environment engages the student with functioning

knowledge in its context and asks them to articulate their appreciation of it. The ability to

make professional judgments about this kind of complex classroom conversation cannot be

standardized or quantified without dulling the dialogue. Assessment practices that respect

the unique and often unexpected outcomes and conversations of inquiry!based learning

must provide time and space for students to reflect and share their ideas openly. Students

must feel comfortable articulating their thinking, not in spite of the fact that they might

wrong, but because they might be wrong. This requires that they recognize that intelligence

is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work %Dweck, 2007, p. 2&.

Students need to share their ideas because they have a desire to learn and recognize that

conversation will support that process. As Palmer %1998&writes, learning demands

community !a dialogical exchange in which our ignorance can be aired, our ideas tested, our

biases challenged, and our knowledge expanded %p. 79&. Inquiry!based pedagogy equips

students to seek feedback from their environment %peers, sources&in a wide range of

settings and a variety of circumstances, %Boud, 2010&and cultivates the confidence to admit

error and seek to have it corrected. Disregarding or flattening conversation as part of the


11/19


assessment process is not only unhelpful but results in surface learning and decreased

motivation to improve %Dweck, 2006, Chappuis, 2009&.

Student Autonomy

Student voice is integral to inquiry!based learning. It acknowledges that students are

at the heart of the learning experience and the teacher cannot do the learning for the

learner. Inquiry intentionally helps students to restructure their knowledge in order to build

di$erent and more powerful ideas %Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Wood, 1998&.

Students are encouraged to adapt their prior knowledge to each investigation, %Barrow,

2006, p. 275&making personal connections within and beyond the discipline and as a result

can often be found working on di$erent tasks during the same class period %Smith et al.,

2001, p. 12&. While the prospect of managing the diversity of 20!plus individual voices in one

classroom can be overwhelming, this anxiety stems more from the expectation that our role

as educators is to direct, supervise and measure individual learning at all stages. The reality

is that when teachers plan every inch and outcome of a lesson, the only real answer to a

question of how to proceed comes from the teacher. Assigning students roles in which they

are responsible solely for waiting to be told what to do is completely contrary to the idea of

cultivating student voice through dialogue, investigation, and accountability to a particular

discipline %Palmer, 1998; Jardine, Cli$ord & Friesen, 2008&.

The cultivation of student autonomy in an inquiry!driven space suggests that

students should both understand their learning goals and be able to assess what they need to

do to reach them %Chappuis, 2009, Black & Wiliam, 2004&. Inquiry!based classrooms

provide students with the opportunity to discern what is good evidence of deep

understanding by being themselves actively involved in selecting it %Friesen, 2009, Biggs &


12/19


Tang, 2007&. Self!assessment must be fundamentally embedded in the learning process. As

Grumet %1976&writes, knowledge of self becomes knowledge of self as knower of the world,

not just as a passive recipient of stimuli from the objective world, not as an expression of

latent subjectivity, but as a bridge between these two domains, a mediator %p. 38&.

In order for assessment to recognize and honour the diversity of student voices and

aptitudes in an inquiry!based classroom, we need to actively cultivate opportunities for

students to learn and perform under di$erent conditions. The question of whether students

have been able to meet the criteria necessary for doing di'cult work within a discipline isnt

answered by comparing students because some work better under pressure, others need

more time (and)as in professional work itself, there are often many ways of achieving a

satisfactory outcome %Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 178&.

When one seeks not uniformity of outcome, but productive diversity, the

need to create forms of evaluation that can handle the uniqueness of outcome

becomes increasingly apparent.... When we cease putting all children on the

same statistically derived distribution, we have to think and judge, we have tointerpret what it is that they have done %Eisner, 1991, p. 47&.

For assessment to respect the emergence of learning outcomes such as creativity,

collaboration and originality, itmustacknowledge them as part of the assessment process.

Authenticity

An inquiry!based approach cultivates meaningful learning experiences that are personally

constructed in relation to particular situations, particular places, in community with others

%Cli$ord & Friesen, 2008b, p. 181&. Understanding is negotiated in relation to historical

perspectives and as representative of larger ideas %Perkins, 2009&. Inquiry!based pedagogy


13/19


reminds us that numbers, letters, theories and formulas are not original truths but second!

order representations of the world as directly experienced %Merleau!Ponty, 1962&. Reliability

and validity are not the exclusive domains of number crunchers %Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 193&.

Inquiry acknowledges that understanding is always subject to personal history and past

experiences %Abram, 1996; Kincheloe, McLaren & Steinberg, 2005&and that to treat

everyone the same when people are so obviously di$erent from each other is the very

opposite of fairness %Elton, 2005,&.

Objectivity in authentic inquiry!based assessment is understood as striving to

achieve a greater consensus or consonance within the disciplinary community %Abram,

1996&. Plausibility, credibility and relevance are not assessed in terms of any set of external

or foundational criteria but require social judgments whose meanings are arrived at through

consensus and discussion %Altheide & Johnson, 2011&.

The situation of the person "applying" the law (is thus): in a certain instance

(situation)he will have to refrain from applying the full rigor of the law (think

'the full rigor of the rubric'). But if he does, it is not because he has no

alternative, but because to do otherwise would not be right. In restraining the

law, he is not diminishing it but, on the contrary, finding a better law. The law

(rubric)is always deficient, not because it is imperfect in itself but because

human reality is necessarily imperfect in comparison to the ordered world of

law, and hence allows of no simple application of the law. %Gadamer, 1989, p.

318&

Ultimately, the real criterion of understanding in inquiry!based classrooms has to involve

thoughtful professional judgement on performance relative to what is expected within a

particular discipline. Students must have the opportunity to demonstrate their


14/19


understanding by thinking and acting flexibly with what they know about it, not just

through the regurgitation of information and execution of routine skills %Perkins, 2009&.

Conclusion

Much of what has developed in assessment and education practices today is

reflective of a time when speed and surface comprehension were the most highly valued

characteristics of a successful learner. In no instance is there any talk about what is being

learned. In no instance is any credence or attention given to the living, interrelated,

patterned disciplines of work within which, for example, one might apply critical thinking

skills %Friesen, 2009, p. 20&. In a system that equates grades with quality of understanding,

students often choose to avoid intellectual risks for fear of their impact on the accuracy of

their information recall. When the score is the important thing, not how it is comprised,

the strategy is to focus on the easy or trivial items %Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 174&. Surface

learning is the inevitable result and as Perkins %2009&notes, a huge body of research

demonstrates that learners generally show very limited understanding, bedeviled by a range

of misconceptions about what most ideas really mean %p. 6&.

For decades, teachers have fielded questions such as when will I ever have to use

this?, or is this going to be on the test? from students. These questions stem from students

embodiment of the separation of schooling from their worldly context. An inquiry approach

to teaching and learning +for both teachers and students +bridges this gap. Inquiry places

the root of academic planning and designing with the learner %the student&and their

questions and learning needs. From this beginning, all teaching considerations that follow

will always be real; nothing could possibly be artificial.,


15/19


The inquiry process not only connects real knowledge to school knowledge, it

dismantles this distinction and orients learners and teachers around a new culture of

schooling that values all knowledge as relevant, meaningful and lasting. Assessment is

substantive, specific and contextual. It should rely on an understanding of how knowledge is

assessed within the living discipline in question %Friesen, 2009&and should not punish

students in ways that make recovery from failure impossible %Guskey, 2013&. Feedback to

learners should not only assess current achievement but also indicate next steps for their

learning %Black & Wiliam, 2004&. Cultivating 21st century thinkers leaves no space for

assigning grades as a way of either assessing or improving their learning process.

If we believe that schools should build a community in which students are

encouraged to engage intellectually and think critically about real issues for extended

periods, if we believe that failure is part of learning, if we believe that students are not all

alike and that schools should teach them how to capitalize on their individual strengths and

those of their classmates as they discover who they are, then traditional assessment

practices need an overhaul. Quantitative assessment too often sends unfortunate messages

to students about the nature of knowledge and draws them away from deep engagement in

creative, original and worthwhile work. In order to sustain meaningful education reform,

decisions about student work should be made on a reasoned and publicly sustainable

judgment about how the specifics are tuned to create an overall structure or impact %Biggs &

Tang, 2007&. Children are not flat, anonymous, trainable beings. Neither are they

measurable entities, and every time we treat them as such we sell them short.,


16/19


References

Abram, D. %1996&. The spe!of the sensuous.New York: Vintage Books.

Altheide, D.L., & Johnson, J.M. %2005&. Reflections on interpretive adequacy in qualitative

research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. %Eds.&, The Sage handbook of qualitative

research.%4th ed.&Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. %2004&. The Formative Purpose: Assessment Must First Promote

Learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103%2&, 20!50. doi:

10.1111/j.1744!7984.2004.tb00047.x

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. %2007&. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does%3rd

ed.&. Buckingham, GBR: Open University Press

Boud, D. %2010&. Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society.

Studies in Continuing Education, 22%2&, 151!167. doi:10.1080/71369572

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. %Eds.&%1999&.How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Chappuis, J. %2009&. Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,

Inc.

Christians, C. G. %2005&Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.

Lincoln %Eds.&, The Sage handbook of qualitative research%4th ed.&%pp. 165 !182&.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cli$ord, P., & Friesen, S. %2008a&. A curious plan: Managing on the twelfth. In. D. Jardine, P.

Cli$ord & S. Friesen. %2008&.Back to the Basics of Teaching and Learning: Thinking the

World Together%pp. 15!36&. New York, NY: Routledge.


17/19


Cli$ord, P., & Friesen, S. %2008b&. Landscapes of loss: On the original di'culty of reading

and interpretive research. In. D. Jardine, P. Cli$ord & S. Friesen. %2008&.Back to the

Basics of Teaching and Learning: Thinking the World Together%pp. 179!192&New York, NY:

Routledge.

Dweck, C.S. %2007&. The secret to raising smart kids. Scientific American Mind, November 28,

2007. Retrieved from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the!secret!to!raising!

smart!kids&print=true

Dweck, C.S. %2006&.Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Friesen, S. %2009&. Inquiry!based learning: Three Alberta schools that know what it takes.

Education Canada, 49%5&, 8!14. Retrieved from: http://www.cea!ace.ca/sites/default/

files/EdCan!2009!v49!n5!Friesen.pdf

Friesen, S. & Jardine, D. %2009&.21st Century Learning and Learners. Western and Northern

Canadian Curriculum Protocol.Retrieved from: http://galileo.org/21st!century!learning!

and!learners/

Fosnot, C., & Dolk, M. %2001&. Young mathematicians at work: Constructing multiplication and

division. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Elton, L. %2005&Designing assessment for creativity: an imaginative curriculum guide. Retrieved

from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id559_elton

Gadamer, H.!G. %1989&. Truth and method.New York: Continuum.

Gilbert, J. %2005&. Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education.

Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/2841.htmhttp://galileo.org/21st-century-learning-and-learners/http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/default/files/EdCan-2009-v49-n5-Friesen.pdfhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids&print=true


18/19


Greeno, J. %1991&. Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain.Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education. 22%3&. 170!218

Guskey, T. R. %2013&. The Case Against Percentage Grades.Educational Leadership, 71%1&,

68!72. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca

Hale, B. %2004&. School neuropsychology: A practitioners handbook. New York: The Guildford

Press.

Jardine, D., Cli$ord, P. & Friesen, S. %2008&.Back to the Basics of Teaching and Learning:

Thinking the World Together.New York, NY: Routledge.

Kincheloe, J.L., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S.R. %2005&. Critical pedagogy, and qualitative

research: Moving to the bricolage. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln %Eds.&, The Sage

handbook of qualitative research%4th ed.&%pp. 165 !182&. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & McTighe, J. %1993&.Assessing student outcomes: Performance

assessment using dimensions of learning model.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development

Merleau!Ponty, M. %1962&.Phenomenology of perception. Great Britain: Routledge

OConnor, K. & Wormeli, R. %2011 &. Reporting student learning.Educational Leadership,

69%3&, 40!44.

Palmer, P. %1998&. The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher s life.San

Francisco: Jossey!Bass.

Perkins, D. %2009&.Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform

education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey!Bass.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/


19/19


Rubin, L. %1991&. The arts and artistic curriculum. In G. Willis & W. H. Shubert %Eds.&,

Reflections"om the heart of educational inquiry %pp. 49!59&. Albany, NY: State University

of New York Press.

Rust, C. %2002&. The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research

literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment

strategies and learner!centered assessment practices?Active Learning in Higher

Education.3%2&, 145 !158. doi: 10.1177/1469787402003002004

Skinner, B. F. %1954&. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational

Review, 24%2&, 86!97.

Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newman, F. %2001&.Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary

schools.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago.

Wood, D. %1998&.How children think and learn: The social contexts of cognitive development #2nd

Edition$.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

eder 603.23 l17 - bailey - bridging the gap - final

Documents