154
all stakeholders played a more active role in the learning, reviewing and assessment
process. Specifically, school coordinators and supervising teachers more accurately
targeted the developmental needs of preservice teachers earlier in the professional
experience placement and were more accountable for the provision of formal feed-
back related to monitoring preservice teachers’ progress aligned with developmen-
tal expectations. Additionally, the use of the rubric for self-assessment and goal
setting shared the responsibility for assessment between the supervising teacher and
the preservice teacher and placed a much stronger emphasis on formative feedback
and evidence-informed practice (QCT, 2012 ).
Conclusion
Assessment is never simply a technical exercise of measurement. It always involves speci-
fying a set of learning outcomes based on a vision of what is worthwhile learning in the first
place. (Parsell, 2013 , p. 10)
The findings here suggest that the use of the new developmental assessment
rubric and self-assessment and goal-setting processes had a substantial, positive
impact on the assessment of teaching capability. Assessment of professional experi-
ence in teacher education in Australia has taken on a significant level of attention
and importance with the introduction of the APST. Many teacher education provid-
ers are seeking their own way to assure that their graduates have attained the required
level of performance. This study describes one possible approach and its qualitative
impact on preservice teachers’ engagement in their professional experience and
those who guide and assess their performance.
The introduction of the rubric resulted in a qualitative difference in preservice
teachers’ conversations with and between their three assessors (a supervising
teacher, school coordinator and teacher educator). As a result of using the rubric,
conversations were transformed to become more comprehensively based on evi-
dence appropriate to the context and focused on the developmental needs of preser-
vice teachers. Additionally, there was a notable shift in shared ownership and
accountability of the assessment process with preservice teachers playing a more
proactive role in their professional development and supervisors reporting increased
levels of confidence in their ability to make judgements about the performance of
preservice teachers. Conversations between stakeholders were deepened, expanded
and more focused. These changes have strengthened the relationship between the
university’s School of Education and the schools that host preservice teachers,
based on trust and confidence in the new assessment and goal-setting processes.
Following the 2 years of consistent positive responses that the innovation has had on
preservice teachers’ engagement with their professional experience, the approach
has now been implemented across all initial teacher education programs offered in
the School of Education. In addition, an evaluation infrastructure has been designed
and established to enable ongoing scrutiny of the efficacy of the tools, the process
and its continued enhancement and development.
T.-A. Sweeney and B. Nielsen