Through this exercise of creating a min map of what PYP assessments look like, I changed from being assumptions-driven to actually basing my work on the framework of the PYP and showcasing the important elements that shape how PYP assessments are thought, delivered and reflected upon.
I learnt that it was more complex and more organized and clear than what I thought earlier 🙂
I mostly used the guide, especially the part that was part of the assessment but also the page 31 for useful questions about planning for assessment. I like that P.30-31 also explain that the formative assessment can assess the LoI and the summative can assess the CI. Pre-assessment seems to be a separate category, equally as important.
In the background (but not visually), I also used the source Earl (2003) which help me better understand the differences between assessments for learning, of learning and as learning. I liked those concepts more than summative and formative as, like Earl (2003) explain, it’s less judgmental and more descriptive. Also, it’s hard to decide whether a formative can be a summative and a summative can be a formative…
I used the source Ash and Kluger-Bell (1999) to review the role of the teacher in an inquiry classroom and when assessing students.
Finally, I used Davy (2011) to included the importance of what we assess when we value international-mindedness.
Bibliography:
Ash, D and Kluger-Bell, B. 1999. “Identifying Inquiry in the K-5 classroom.” Foundations. Vol 2. Pp. 79-85.
Davy, I 2011. “Learners without borders: A curriculum for global citizenship”. International Baccalaureate.
Earl, L. 2003. “Classroom Assessment for Deep Understanding: Shifting from Assessment OF
Learning to Assessment FOR Learning and Assessment AS Learning. Aporia Consulting.