Assessment for Learning Training Course

Participants can define assessable learning constructs and write measurable outcomes and criteria.

• Learning outcomes written with observable verbs, conditions and performance criteria
• Bloom's revised taxonomy used to calibrate cognitive demand
• SOLO taxonomy distinguishes surface, multistructural, relational and extended abstract responses
• Construct definition separates target learning from irrelevant task features
• Success criteria translated into learner-friendly, assessable language for tasks
• Constructive alignment connects outcomes, teaching activities and assessment evidence

Participants can plan valid coverage of learning outcomes through an assessment blueprint.

• Assessment blueprint maps outcomes, content coverage, methods and cognitive levels
• Table of specifications allocates items by content weight and demand
• Sampling plans balance breadth, depth and feasible marking time
• Evidence-centred design identifies claims, evidence and task models
• Blueprint gaps exposed through outcome-to-task coverage matrices
• Assessment calendars sequence diagnostic checks, feedback cycles and summative points

Participants can evaluate assessment quality using validity, reliability, fairness and consequence evidence.

• Validity argument assembled from content, response process and consequence evidence
• Reliability distinguished from validity, fairness and scoring consistency
• Construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance diagnosed using item evidence
• Inter-rater reliability monitored through calibration and agreement records
• Consequences reviewed for access, motivation, curriculum narrowing and decisions
• Defensible assessment decisions documented using an evidence audit trail

Participants can design diagnostic assessments that identify readiness, misconceptions and starting points.

• Diagnostic probes uncover prior knowledge, misconceptions and readiness barriers
• Misconception inventories target predictable errors before new instruction begins
• Entry tickets produce rapid evidence for grouping and lesson adjustment
• Confidence ratings distinguish uncertainty from firmly held misconceptions
• Pre-assessment results converted into differentiated starting points for instruction
• Baseline records set measurable progress indicators for each learning sequence

Participants can select and sequence formative routines that produce actionable evidence during teaching.

• Wiliam's five key strategies organise formative assessment routines
• Learning intentions and success criteria made visible before performance
• Questioning plans elicit evidence from every learner, not volunteers
• Wait time, cold calling and no-hands questioning improve participation
• Hinge questions test critical concepts before instructional commitment
• Mini-whiteboards and response cards reveal whole-class patterns immediately

Participants can design feedback processes that help learners identify and act on next steps.

• Feedback models distinguish task, process, self-regulation and self-feedback
• Sadler's gap model connects quality criteria, current work and action
• Actionable comments specify next steps without completing learners' thinking
• Feedback timing matched to task complexity and revision opportunity
• Comment-only marking separates formative information from grades during drafts
• Feedback literacy develops learners' capacity to seek, interpret and use comments

Participants can create clear scoring criteria and performance standards for learner work.

• Analytic rubrics separate criteria, performance levels and score descriptors
• Single-point rubrics focus feedback around a published quality standard
• Exemplars and annotated anchor papers clarify performance expectations
• Descriptor language avoids vague labels such as good or excellent
• Rubric quality checked for alignment, observability and discriminating power
• Co-created criteria build shared interpretation without lowering standards

Participants can establish structured peer and self-assessment processes that improve learner judgment.

• Peer assessment protocols establish evidence-based comments, roles and respectful dialogue
• Structured peer review uses criteria, exemplars and revision commitments
• Self-assessment prompts compare current work against explicit success criteria
• Calibration sessions reduce inflated peer scores and inconsistent judgments
• Metacognitive reflection records strategy choices, evidence and next actions
• Peer and self evidence integrated without replacing professional judgment

Participants can construct assessment tasks that elicit the intended evidence of learning.

• Selected-response items target defined constructs rather than recall alone
• Multiple-choice distractors built from documented misconceptions and plausible alternatives
• Item stems state problems clearly without irrelevant reading demand
• Constructed-response prompts specify scope, evidence and expected reasoning
• Performance tasks elicit application through authentic constraints and criteria
• Task accessibility reviewed for language load, format and prior exposure

Participants can interpret item-level evidence and make justified revisions to assessments.

• Item difficulty, discrimination and distractor functioning interpreted after administration
• Classical test theory statistics identify items requiring review
• Facility index and point-biserial correlation guide item decisions
• Response patterns reveal misconceptions, guessing and ambiguous wording
• Marking data triangulated with scripts, observations and teacher notes
• Item bank records retain revisions, performance data and rationale

Participants can plan moderation processes that support consistent assessment judgments.

• Moderation processes align judgments across assessors, classes and sites
• Pre-marking calibration establishes shared interpretations of rubrics and exemplars
• Blind double marking samples check consistency and detect drift
• Standardisation meetings document agreed decisions and borderline case treatments
• Appeals procedures separate reviewable evidence from discretionary judgments
• Moderation records support quality assurance and professional learning

Participants can review assessment materials for access barriers, bias and appropriate accommodations.

• Universal Design for Learning offers multiple means of engagement and expression
• Accessible assessment removes avoidable barriers while preserving construct demands
• Accommodations distinguished from modifications using documented learning requirements
• Plain-language review reduces unnecessary linguistic complexity in task instructions
• Bias review checks cultural assumptions, names, contexts and representations
• Assistive technology arrangements planned without changing intended evidence

Participants can convert learner evidence into targeted teaching, support and extension decisions.

• Assessment data displays connect learner evidence to instructional questions
• Item-level analysis identifies reteaching priorities and enrichment opportunities
• Student work protocols surface patterns before selecting instructional responses
• Data meetings follow inquiry cycles: notice, hypothesise, act, review
• Progress-monitoring charts track growth against clearly defined learning goals
• Small-group plans respond to evidence without fixed ability labels

Participants can communicate assessment evidence clearly to learners, families and institutional stakeholders.

• Assessment literacy communications explain purposes, criteria, evidence and decisions
• Reporting formats distinguish achievement, progress, effort and attendance
• Standards-referenced reports describe performance against criteria rather than peers
• Parent conferences use annotated work samples and next-step commitments
• Sensitive results communicated with privacy, clarity and constructive language
• Escalation routes address concerns about marking, access and fairness

Participants can define governance controls for reliable assessment design, delivery and review.

• Assessment policy defines principles, roles, evidence requirements and review cycles
• Quality assurance plan assigns controls for design, delivery and marking
• Risk register addresses security, malpractice, inconsistency and data privacy
• Assessment governance clarifies approval authority, accountability and escalation
• Data retention schedules align access controls with institutional requirements
• Implementation milestones coordinate training, piloting, review and revision

Participants can plan and evaluate a targeted improvement to an assessment process.

• Assessment improvement inquiry frames a problem, evidence source and intervention
• Plan-do-study-act cycles test assessment changes on a manageable scale
• Logic models connect assessment inputs, activities, outputs and learner outcomes
• Success measures combine attainment, participation, feedback use and equity
• Implementation plans assign owners, milestones, resources and review evidence
• Change communications prepare staff for new routines and expectations

Participants can build, review and present a complete assessment plan for a defined learning programme.

• Assessment plan integrates outcomes, blueprint, tasks, rubric and feedback cycle
• Validity, reliability, fairness and accessibility checks inform design revisions
• Sample learner evidence analysed to determine feedback and instructional actions
• Moderation protocol specifies calibration materials, records and decision rules
• Implementation plan sets responsibilities, timeline, risks and quality controls
• Peer review tests alignment, usability and defensibility before presentation