A TOOL FOR LEARNING?
An analysis of targets and strategies in Swedish Individual Education Plans
Author:
Åsa Hirsh, Jönköping University,
School of Education and Communication,
P.O. Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden.
E-mail: [email protected]
Extended abstract for conference Assessment for Learning
Borås, September 28th 2010
Are Individual Education Plans effective tools in supporting children´s learning? Whether the plans are
given to pupils with special educational needs or to all compulsory school pupils, the purpose behind
them is that they shall function as tools in the learning process and make a positive difference for
individual pupils.
This study deals with IEP assessment and how it is expressed in written documents. It has been carried
out in Sweden, where all compulsory school pupils since 2006 are given IEPs twice a year. The IEPs shall
assess pupils´ knowledge and, according to steering documents (Skolverket, 2008), be formative, active and
concrete tools in pupils´ learning process.
Writing IEP assessment with a supposedly formative, active and concrete function involves setting targets
and suggesting strategies suitable for each pupil. This study aims to develop further knowledge about how
this is done, by focusing on the following questions:
‐
How are targets and strategies expressed in Swedish IEPs?
‐
In what way(s) do targets and strategies interact with each other?
‐
What differences (if any) are there between IEPs given to pupils in differing stages of school?
For the purpose of this study IEPs are seen as tools for learning, addressed to the pupils. As such I regard
them as part of a formative assessment practice which can be seen in the light of Vygotskij´s zone of
proximal development. Sheperd (2005) describes formative assessment as “a dynamic process in which
supportive adults or classmates help learners from what they already know to what they are able to do next, using their zone
of proximal development” (p. 66) and furthermore that “Learning in the zone of proximal development is a joint activity
in which the adult simultaneously keeps an eye on the goal of fully proficient performance and on what the learner, with
assistance, is currently able to do” (a.a., p. 66). The idea of IEP as a tool for learning makes sense seen in the
light of ZPD as described above, even though one has to view the concept of ZPD in a longer perspective
than one does when talking about short cycled formative assessment immediately taking place in the
classroom. The IEP can be seen as a way of taking instruction out of the actual classroom setting and to a
more reflected level; with the aim to highlight central targets slightly above the individual´s current level
and provide guidance and strategies for reaching these targets. Just as in classroom assessment, IEP
assessment aims at determining how pupils respond to instruction and how instruction can be adapted to
better meeting the needs of the individual.
Method
This is a qualitative study based on document analysis. Collected data consists of 379 written Individual
Education Plans from forms 3, 5 and 8 in Swedish compulsory school. My understanding of the data
material as a whole has been established by reference to the individual parts and vice versa. A total of 829
learning/developmental targets and 557 suggested strategies for reaching targets were listed and analyzed
separately at first and later in relation to each other. This led to the creation of target type- and strategy type
categories, enabling a way of reasoning around written assessment with a formative function as it can be
expressed through targets and strategies in Swedish IEPs.
Results
The analysis of targets, based on the content they expressed, resulted in three categories called Being, Doing
and Learning.
•
Being targets express a wish or need for a pupil to be in a certain way. The expressions revolve
around the pupil´s personality, behavior and attitude towards school work. The being targets are
rarely connected to curricular goals
•
Doing targets express that a pupil shall do something. Typical for the doing targets is that it is
difficult to see which curricular ability they are connected to or how one could formulate
strategies for reaching them. The target formulation is very often similar to the strategy
formulation.
•
Learning targets are connected to subject matter knowledge. They typically suggest abilities
being improved, understanding being increased, basic skills being drilled or certain results being
reached.
The analysis of suggested strategies for reaching targets resulted in two categories; Being and Doing. Just as
being in a certain way could be a target, it is also suggested as a strategy for reaching targets. Targets will
be reached if the pupil changes certain traits, behavior or attitudes. The other strategy type, doing, is
more action-oriented, and suggests some kind of action to be taken for the target to be reached.
Targets and strategies were also studied in relation to each other, which led to five new categories on a
combined target-strategy level:
The results show that the being aspect (pupils´ personality, behavior, attitude) is involved in target-strategy
combinations in various ways, a fact that can be problematic. Moreover, the results point to certain
difficulties in separating targets from strategies and thereby answering the formative questions “where am I
going?” and “how do I get there?”. There also emerges a picture of targets often being general rather than
individual and strategies often being vague rather than concrete. With target-strategy formulations like “try
to improve your grades by keeping up the steam” – it seems likely that all IEP documents cannot always be
regarded as active, concrete and individual tools for learning. The results also show that targets tend to be
more individual the younger the pupils are and more general the older they are. Similarly the strategies
tend to be more concrete the younger the pupils are and more vague the older they are.
Whether IEPs are effective learning tools, and whether the time spent in generating and implementing
them is more efficient in supporting pupils´ learning than other ways of spending that time would be, is
highly relevant in relation to the results of this study.
The results of this study point to a need for a deeper understanding among teachers for the ideas and
implementations of formative assessment in IEP documents. Formulating distinct, individual targets and
concrete strategies that do not leave the pupil with all responsibility is essential if IEPs shall fulfill their
purpose of being learning tools aiming for the future, instead of just giving information about pupils´
current level. To do this, teachers should be more focused on learning-by-doing and less focused on
involving the being-aspect.