There are two very different models of learning we can think of... when we teach we probably bounce between them...

The standard model says: teach the content, then assess what stuck. The developmental model says: use assessment during the learning so you can see where students are, what they’re doing, and what needs to happen next. A seemingly small difference... you are responding to what you're hearing from your learners. This is a different interpretation of 'evidence-based teaching'... one where the evidence is from the people in front of you.

In the standard model, assessment often arrives at the end, once the teaching is supposedly finished. Its main role is to judge, sort, report, compare. That’s why so much school data feels weirdly lifeless. It tells you who is above, below, on track, off track, and so on, but often says very little about what the student can actually do in their work, or what the teacher should do tomorrow morning. It is also kind of disempowering... describing what happened like it has no influence on future teaching and learning. In Humanities, my area, we teach 4 different sub-subjects (I know that isn't a word!) - history/geo/civics/eco+business. So often it is one subject a term. So typically you get feedback on something and then don't get a chance to act on that feedback (teacher OR student) for 1 year. Unlikely to make any difference...

The developmental model is more useful because it treats assessment as part of teaching, not the autopsy afterwards. Evidence gets used while there is still time to respond. Teachers look at the work, compare it to criteria that describe growth within a skill, and make decisions from there. Not glamorous, but actually helpful.

It also changes professional conversation. In a standard model, assessment data can become private property. My class, my marks, my judgement. In a developmental model, evidence is something you can put on the table and interrogate together. What are these students actually doing? Where are they stalled? What would movement look like? That tends to produce better teaching conversations than arguing about whether a B+ was a bit generous.

The standard model tends to compare students to norms. The developmental model compares their work to a progression. One looks for deficits ('deficit model' thinking). The other looks for position and next steps. Same students. Very different story.

Developmental thinking changes what you notice, what you talk about, and what you do next.

[Photo by Gregoire Jeanneau on Unsplash]