It would be great if your sharing could follow this flow please:

1. What are the learning outcomes and success criteria for what I want my students to learn?

2. What evidence of learning did I / do I plan to collect to assess students' learning vis-a-vis the above learning outcomes and success criteria?

3. What formative assessment tasks did I / do I plan to design to collect the evidence of learning, and why? Formative assessment tasks could range from weighted assessments, in-class AfL activities, alternative assessments, AfL tasks in flipped learning, etc.

4. [only if you have implemented the assessment] What did I learn about my students' learning progress from the evidence of learning? How did I use the evidence to better support their learning (e.g., levels of feedback to feed forward; adjustment of instruction to close gaps)?

5. [only if you have implemented the assessment] What would I keep, improve, start, or stop the next time I do this?

1. Through the series of formative assessment tasks, we want students to get a good grasp of content, understand the success criteria of what goes into the evaluation of a source, instead of following a given set of criteria blindly, and understand the success criteria of Part A SBCS.

2. / 3. Multiple short take-home individual assignments, and in-class tasks where students work in groups - opportunities for individual feedback and group feedback.

4. / 5. The following gaps were identified in student responses from CA1, which teachers could follow up with.

• MCQs: students tended to struggle with the more conceptual type of questions (with weighted options - all options are correct to some extent), which reveals their conceptual clarity or lack thereof.

• Single source (gobbet) writing: students tended to show weaknesses in contextualisation - either not contextualising at all or contextualisation was not effectively tied to source evaluation.

• Part A: students were able to demonstrate the required moves to compare points of view and provide insights; but the quality of insights varied.

• During review of CA1, in addition to personalised feedback, big group feedback was given via student sample analysis with reference to success criteria (see attached review document).

  • To facilitate feed forward, students, depending on their gaps, were required to submit the relevant corrections.

  • For particular MCQs that were poorly attempted, teachers reviewed the options and use that opportunity to clarify content gaps.

• The step-inside task serves as a means of sparking curiosity, as well as to assess students' differing levels of prior knowledge on concepts related to the economy. before starting the inquiry proper. Students who come with more prior knowledge, such as those offering economics or CSC, would demonstrate more coherent / well-considered proposals, while students without prior knowledge may demonstrate misconceptions.

• assess if students can explain how an individual policy / reform contributed to transformation, they work in groups on a performance task by gathering evidence from various sources, and presenting their findings to their classmates. They will also need to demonstrate their understanding by responding to a Google Classroom exit card about what they have learnt from the presentations. Through their responses, teachers will provide feedback on any misconceptions and further questions that students may have.

• To assess students' ability to evaluate the relative importance of factors, a figjam activity is conducted, allowing students to make their thinking visible and subsequently justify to their cohort mates (in lecture), their choice of ranking.

• To assess if students can apply their understandings from the figjam lesson, students are tasked to work on an essay outline about the factors for transformation, and submit an introduction paragraph on Google classroom before the tutorial. In class, students will engage in peer assessment by critiquing the curated introduction samples. The teacher will help guide students towards providing accurate feedback about the introductions.

Based on their responses, we realized that students had some misconceptions about state-owned enterprises and privatisation. During our feedback lesson for both essays, we provided a quick content recap for these areas, as well as additional readings to help them with their understanding.

The added components also allowed our students to better pinpoint the stumbling blocks affecting their performance for Part (a).

There were some students who did not do well for the first two components and, correspondingly and understandably, also did not do well for the Part (a).

On the other hand, there were students who did well for the first two components but did not do well for the Part (a). This suggested that while they had a good grasp of the content and chronology, they struggled with the skills of identifying comparisons and/or providing insights to them.

Question 1 - Many students chose options that revealed that they did not have a clear idea of the back-and-forth between the Western powers and the USSR about the issue of reparations.

Question 5 - Many students had the misconception that there is a single post-revisionist interpretation.

Question 7 - Many students had the misconception that Syngman Rhee's regime was democratic in nature.

Question 8 - Many students had the misconception that the Soviet Union sent ground troops to the Korean War, demonstrating that they did not have a clear understanding of why the Korean War is called a proxy war.

Question 9 - Related to the misconception for Question 8, many students had the misconception that the Soviet Union signed the Armistice Agreement.

The group essay that they produced at the end of the Seminar.

Exit Ticket Responses, in-class tasks , Group take-home assignments

Students are definitely more intentionally using the success criteria to guide their essay writing. There has been progress since it was first introduced to them in the middle of last year. Even the peer comments' reflected this understanding.

As I have reflected within the slides, giving feedback that feedforward took me quite a bit of time as it still feels rather unnatural for me and requires more practice.

Keep - Group Work - much benefits on the students' end but for the teachers, it helps in the teacher's marking load as well (so that you can focus on giving timely, quality feedforward feedback)

Improve - on my feed-forward feedback. I definitely need to build more confidence in this area in order to benefit my students better in terms of my feedback. I really took a lot of time trying to give feedback that feeds forward. So I returned the assignment later than I had planned for.

Start - Haven't thought about this

Stop - So far no red flags in the flow of tasks. ( I hope)

1. (Past) What have I done well when implementing formative assessment in 2024? What challenges did I face?

2. (Present) What is one thing about formative assessment that I previously did not know about but practise now?

3. (Future) What is one thing that I have learned from my NLC peers about formative assessment that has inspired me to try out something new?

• how to build a (not-so-onerous but impactful) reflection routine for conceptual understanding and skills development to develop metacognition and student capacity for self- and peer- assessment.

• how to design meaningful alternative and/or weighted assessment tasks to assess historical understanding.

• how to leverage on tech to augment/transform assessment practices for history.

Another area I am interested in is about self and peer assessment, and how this can be better leveraged in lessons.

1. Weighted assessment ideas that go beyond just sit-down timed exams

2. Peer assessment strategies

3. Differentiated assessment strategies

2: One thing I wanted to find out was the use of EdTech to support formative assessment and the sharings by Ana and Alex Chan provided some useful ideas of how to do that.

3: I acquired many new ideas from the NLC members' sharing e.g., Justin's idea of MCQs to assess concepts; Ana's and Alex Chan's ideas of designing self-contained units with incremental formative assessment tasks.

2- (Present) I have become a lot more aware about the need to provide differentiated feedback to different students; through the formative assessment, we (as a team) had also looked through the students' work and discussed how we could provide more individualized feedback to the students

3 - (Future) I've been very inspired by way that some individuals have planned formative assessment within the unit plans (Ana / Alex), which would be something I could potentially explore.

2. I learnt that success criteria need not be so comprehensive and have sought to teach more general success criteria to my students that would be less overwhelming to them.  

3. I’m inspired to try out the gobbet exercise that Alex and Janice shared, especially for J1 students starting out with SBQ. 

   
   

   I’m also inspired to try out the activity that Ana shared about how she got her students to re-evaluate their initial evaluation regarding an issue as they learnt more content/developments about the issue.  

2. Having greater awareness of success criteria and what it entails. Even in NIE, I wasn’t always quite clear on how it might differ from the learning outcomes.

   
   

3. I think use of MCQ and gobbet exercises as part of weighted assessment is an interesting approach that could allow for better understanding of specific gaps in student understanding. I would be keen to share these ideas with my team, and discuss how we might potentially change the way that we approach our weighted assessments, which have historically been based on the A level assessment.