Experiences of managing static formal learning spaces

Keywords: lear ning environments, movement, space management, spatial design

A C T Managing the space in which learning takes place is subject to ongoing debate. Spatial management and movement can impact upon the construction of meaning within education and upon the dynamic of learning. It is suggested that there are now different learning goals and expectations and consequently a need for different learning environments. We are urged to break out. Many constraints, however, result in everyday experience not being of high-tech, impressively designed formal and informal spaces.This article contributes to a navigation of the realities of learning space. It recognizes that the literature may be leaving the profession behind and that for many educators the opportunities of design are merely aspirations. Taking as its focal point the small seminar room with sparse furniture, it presents two studies to contribute ideas on how such non-ideal spaces might be managed; one looking at an alternative education space, the museum, and the second drawing on interviews with colleagues about their experiences.

Introduction

There is more to a seminar room than four walls, desks and chairs. The seminar space is contingent. What goes on within that space and what went before in the lives of the users, and the space itself, are all important considerations. Likewise, the who, what, and how, of both the seminar space and its incumbents, become a focus for understanding what that space, and the movement within it, might mean for the educational process. Spatial management and movement can impact upon the construction of meaning within education and impact directly upon the dynamic of learning. Dealing with such challenges is the subject of ongoing debate. We are aware that there are now different learning goals and expectations and consequently a need for different learning environments [START_REF] Bransford | The Design of Learning Environments[END_REF]. We are urged to break out -'shift from these … fairly rigidly organized spaces to [a] much more flexible space use' (Campus Technology, 2003). Yet this is not so easy. As [START_REF] Oblinger | Space as a Change Agent[END_REF] points out, learning environments (and, by implication, learning itself) remain 'static' and 'bolted'. Organizations indeed 'face pressure to deliver higher standards of education, to greater numbers of students, with tight financial restrictions, but still need to provide facilities that will attract students in a competitive market' (Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC], 2006: 5).This article tries to navigate the realities of learning space. It recognizes that the literature may be leaving the profession behind (JISC, 2006: 10). It also notes that for many educators the opportunities of design (see for example Student-Centered Activities for Large-Enrollment Undergraduate Programs, www.ncsu.edu/per/SCALEUP/Classrooms.html) are merely aspirations. Hence the focal point for the article is the seminar room that is small, has a set of chairs and tables, a door, a board and a window. It then undertakes two studies to contribute ideas on how such non-ideal spaces might be managed; one looking at an alternative education space, the museum, and the second drawing on interviews with colleagues about their experiences. The article begins, however, with some context for why space should matter.

Why space matters

When one considers space management, one is considering the social construction of education. As is rightly noted, 'space is not … some static absolute, devoid of effects or implications. It is constructed out of social relations which themselves are saturated with an integral dynamism' (Tamboukou, quoted in Quinn, 2003: 449).Three key dimensions are raised here which, whilst basic, are worth repeating as they denote why it is important to continue to engage with such a topic. First, the group (of students and tutor) is a social organization that has, and creates, its own meanings.The participants, all with their own histories and formative experiences, their interactions, and the contexts within which those interactions take place make the seminar a dynamic place. Accordingly, the movements within the space, that partly underlie those interactions, are also socially constructed sources of meaning. Franks and Jewitt (2001: 201) usefully reflect that 'the physical action of socially organized persons is a powerful mode of realising meaning in classrooms'.The education environment is an interactive location, in which it will be significant how, why and in what form meaningful bodies move. The third dimension is the space itself. This does refer to that within the four walls of the seminar room. Yet it is problematic to see it merely as such. To hold the room as a contained unit is to potentially see only a single framework within it, a finite and discernable set of meanings. Rather I would agree that the seminar room should not be considered a 'space of enclosure' with a 'singular canonical meaning' (Edwards and Usher, 2000: 48).

More pertinent is the idea of the space being a 'negotiated terrain' (Quinn, 2003: 450). That said, this negotiation is not value neutral. Space is about position -geographically, temporally and politically. Hence it is 'constituted, not found, uncovered or pre-existing the practices that take place within it' (Edwards and Usher, 2000: 121). Layered over this too is the specific position and meaning of the institution itself. It is noteworthy that emphasis is placed in the literature on the meanings given by architecture -for example 'an authoritative and communal public resource … set [ting] the tone for what was expected from it from both the general public and the university community'; 'architectural embodiments of educational philosophies' [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF]; National Learning Infrastructure Initiative [NLII], 2004).There are accordingly multiple expectations of the institution, its space and the outcomes of its learning [START_REF] Bransford | The Design of Learning Environments[END_REF]. Squaring this with a principle of flexible, student-centred learning requires us to consider more the balance of august, elite education, social expectations and modern learning styles. Conceptual frameworks of group, movement and space are most challenging. Tutors should consider the nature of boundaries in their teaching space.There is no reason to presume that the seminar room is immune to globalization, for example. Edwards and Usher (2000: 7-8, 10-11) reflect that globalization '(dis)locates' pedagogy, as information, ideas, relationships, cultures, pressures and power are all neither bounded nor closed nor secure. Hence understandings of the student and the tutor -of themselves and those around them -are susceptible to shifting dynamics of who and what they are, and how power relations occur amongst them.This affects the relationships, as well as how topics are treated and how the process of learning occurs. Hence within, and indeed because of, the space, complex and modifying senses of 'the world outside' will be occurring, with that world much closer.

Learning space matters therefore as it is a dynamic realm. It has implications for how the educational process is undertaken, through group orientation and through goal, reward, role and resource interdependence (Petress, 2004: 587-8;Colbeck et al., 2000: 81). There is indeed potential for active participation (McFadden and Munns, 2002: 360-4), but how 'progressive' this may be is open to question when globalization suggests uncertainty about location, time and identity. Gender, ethnicity, class and so on, as well as how authority operates, are similarly uncertain. We may thereby be dealing with confused or even inhospitable spaces.

Academic discussion has engaged in various ways with space management. In particular linkages are rightly being made between how learning itself is understood, how it takes place, and how space is integral to that. To summarize greatly, learning is now conceived of as about understanding, discovery and experience-informed iterative processes [START_REF] Brown | Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE[END_REF][START_REF] Bransford | The Design of Learning Environments[END_REF]. As a match of style to method improves achievement (Dunn, Beaudry and Klavas in Hiemstra, 1991: 16), the challenge is not only to develop such methods, but to integrate space management into learning. Hence the emphasis in space management is on discovery, experience and flexibility (Fulton, 1990: 9). To get to this stage, there has however been varied engagement with space management. Fulton (1990: 3-9) provides a useful genealogy of academic interest, particularly within the USA. He charts how the Adult Education Association initiated the discussion with its 1953 Architecture for Adult Education.Yet much of the subsequent three decades fell fallow as, for Fulton (1990: 3) citing studies by Dunn and Dunn, and Fitt, insufficient research was carried out -owing to a dominant belief that space use was individualized, there could be no scope for generalizations or even action.This conclusion resonates with Hiemstra's review (1991: 7). Research blossomed in the mid 1980s, such as Vosko's work on physical spaces, Belsheim on organizational environments within continuing education settings, Fraser and Treagust's development of measurements for 'psychosocial environment', and Darkenwald and Valentine on social environments of adult education classrooms (Hiemstra, 1991: 7). Then Fulton himself, building on the work of David, who introduced the idea of a 'functional environment', and Weinstein, who innovatively reflected that the physicality of classroom is integral to learning, started to challenge the premises of space research, looking at the adaptive and adoptive responses people have to physical environments (Hiemstra, 1991: 7).

There are, of course, numerous dimensions of space analysis (furniture, heating, etc.) on which the present study unfortunately cannot dwell. As it is, [START_REF] Woolner | A Sound Foundation? What We Know about the Impact of Environments on Learning and the Implications for Building Schools for the Future[END_REF] conclusion that there is insufficient evidence anyway to suggest that individual physical changes, rather than overall environmental change, affect development and learning, is salutary. Any one utilization of space, however innovative, is not enough, but rather there must be ongoing responsiveness to potential alternatives, needs and constraints [START_REF] Kane | Educators, Learners and Active Learning Methodologies[END_REF].This study wishes to draw instead on experiences within particular learning environments to reflect upon some of the challenges faced. Similarly this study also hopes to avoid two certain perceptible trends within some literature and practice. Firstly it is notable that priority is still given to basic functions of the learning space, such as heating, ventilation and lighting, rather than to the broader dynamism of the room (see for example NLII, 2004). [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF] summarizes various studies that all focus on function and, in a recent discussion, it is interesting that a proponent of change in space usage only emphasizes 'spaces that are built around very fundamental human needs like comfort, natural light, operable windows, good social ambience, nice sort of quality, views out the window' (Campus Technology, 2003). I would also include here the attention being given to the use of technology. Innovative ideas are appropriately discussed in the literature [START_REF] Brown | Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE[END_REF][START_REF] Lomas | Student Practices and Their Impact on Learning Spaces[END_REF]. Technology should not however be an end in itself. Technology can help, as [START_REF] Brown | Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE[END_REF] argues, to focus on wider experiences, bringing them in to the classroom.Yet he adds that institutions must have a learning space vision first, not just install IT. Technology should be 'firmly in the background' (NLII, 2004).

Universities, at least in Europe, are of course not wealthy intuitions. Funding for such expensive capital renovations may at best be only available to certain funding-rich subjects. Hence whilst technology and function are important, I would suggest that there is more to space management than this. Practice is part necessity and part inertia (Chism and Bickford, 2003: 1). Therefore I suggest that discussion within the literature needs to be ongoing regarding how static spaces may be engaged with, and what experiences may be shared. Linked to such aforementioned functionalism is the second perceptible trend of behaviouralism. By such a term I mean an over-generalized emphasis on traits of students and claimed cause-effect. Some examples of such research are given by Hiemstra (1991: 7) and [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF], in which 'physical environment[s] render some behaviors much more likely, and thus more probable, than others'. Although, again, I am not negating such research, I would suggest merely a note of caution that behaviouralism can lead to a problematic depoliticization of learning, particularly regarding how people act as sociocultural individuals. Fellenz and Conti alert us to better understand such issues as racism, discrimination, employment and critical thinking, in relation to adult learning (Hiemstra, 1991: 7). By contrast, I am struck by the idea of a 'constructivist classroom'.The discussions of autonomy, initiative, active knowledge construction and knowledge-, assessment-and learnercommunities [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF]NLII, 2004;[START_REF] Bransford | The Design of Learning Environments[END_REF] all place expectations on the use of space and movement within it.This includes the growing interest in 'informal spaces'. Taking in links between corridors, seminar rooms, faculty spaces, libraries, cafes and beyond [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF], this is a demanding approach; it is prophesized that the 'act of accessing data will no longer be tied to a particular time or location' (NLII, 2004). Whilst my study addresses static, mainstream, rather than informal spaces, I would just note that there does seem insufficient reflection in the literature on how such liberation out of the built frames of higher education will square with the oft repeated (and noted above) assertion that universities, through their architecture, profess their augustness.

There is, then, a growing consensus that there should be a harmony of space and learning. Spaces that are harmonious with learning theory and the needs of current students reflect flexibility, comfort, sensory stimulation and decentredness [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF]. Educators are urged to echo in their learning spaces responsive, inclusive and supportive learning strategies; learning space 'should be able to motivate learners and promote learning as an activity, support collaborative as well as formal practice, provide a personalized and inclusive environment, and be flexible in the face of changing needs' (JISC, 2006: 2-3). To this I would add, and offer this article accordingly, that consensus need not mean an end to discussion. Likewise many academics and students are faced with static, 'undesirable' learning spaces. I suggest therefore that it is useful to continue to share experiences of using learning spaces, of different forms. The present discussion moves consequently to two applications of the ideas of space. First, learning from the museum sector, as another educational space, is explored. Subsequently, ideas of space management are observed.

Learning from and in museums

There is an ongoing process within museums to capture their own experiences of how people learn. Much of this can be reflected upon by universities. The two institutions are not as incomparable as may be expected by some. Museum educators may have more freedom than university tutors, yet the status of each institution within society, the buildings and resources at their disposal and the means by which learning may be facilitated denote much cross-over. Indeed, in recognizing museums as educational spaces, the museum sector has itself drawn from pedagogical research (Hooper-Greenhill, 1999: 3-4). Iteratively, the university sector may 'borrow back' many of these ideas -as it has indeed done with other fields (Hiemstra, 1991: 16;Fulton, 1990: 8). Museums' own research has reflected upon the spatial context that is the educational process of the museum. I explore here the commentary of a Canadian museum, on its spatial considerations in education, which provides a number of insights into space management within the seminar room (Communications Design Team [CDT], 1999: 179-89).

Tutors might consider the pedagogical implications of three key spatial issues faced by museums. Spatial context, firstly, can be understood as the mood of the setting, and the meanings that are drawn from that. Hence architectural quality, the light and any surroundings that add or distract, set a spatial scene. This begins the moment the student walks in, whereby the doorway itself impacts upon the approach (figuratively as well as physically) to space and education. Configurations -the form and nature of the settingthat impact upon actual space to move and, likewise, any subdivisions that are laid out (including clustering of tables, as well as anterooms for use in syndicate or buzz groups), spatially guide the learning process. Above all, the spatial image presented informs approaches to the seminar. Consider the consequence for lessons of dilapidated, cold and dark spaces, and indeed conversely of overly, and distractingly, pristine modern spaces. A sense of being somewhere learned, dynamic and so on, is (pre-)constructed.

Accordingly, space and subject matter are also closely inter-related. The Canadian museum noted that there is a distinct fit between storyline, the objects of the museum and the museum space. The relationship between space and objects is one of how perceptions of, and access to, what is being presented are impacted upon by the management of space. In seminars this would be about the use and display of physical items, such as visual aids. However it may also be suggested that the tutor, the student and, indeed, the interaction of ideas, are 'objects' that have a positional and interactional fit with space. Accordingly the storyline, or narrative of the seminar/ museum, is in fact not just the topic under discussion, but the new form it takes as these objects interact. Innovative educators are taking on this idea of space and storyline -the Centres of Excellence in Teaching and Learning at the Universities of Sussex and Brighton are maintaining a database of 'learning journeys' (JISC, 2006: 14). It is perhaps unsurprising that space may indeed reinforce storyline. For the museum, how subdivisions and paths through exhibitions are controlled is important. In education, if it is accepted that education is both a narrative and a process of self-experience, this can be essential. This is both physical and intellectual. Role play and small group work are clear examples of physical process choices. Yet there is a pedagogical dimension too. The museum sector has debated whether lineal, rational sequences, or flexible, choice-based narratives are most effective. For the seminar this raises the question of the selection of sequential teaching, such as a focus on dates rather than themes. More broadly, the spatial content of storyline also becomes a debate of teleology, of whether the storyline has a 'truthful' outcome to be reached. Space management requires specific epistemological decisions.

Indeed, controlling the storyline through space is not a simple matter. It may alarm tutors when another educator, in this case from a museum, suggests that 'the spatial organization of a gallery should be evident without strain to the viewer' (CDT, 1999: 182, emphasis added). The aim is actually to aid confidence in the learning process, moving through the educational space with logical ease. This may be achieved via a reduction in complexity of choices and the use of spatial cues (although surprises are possible). Such reduction is challenging for tutors who may well be concerned about standards and levels of preparation, participation and learning amongst students. In spatial terms, what is implied is that the student/gallery visitor is primary in the relationship; the teacher's/curator's job is to enable their learning.Yet providing guidance and cues also suggests a retention of control. Hence space management is a question of how the tutor, through the spatial context, enables the learning process.

The final spatial issue faced is that of movement.The museum notes that entering and exiting the room are important parts of the learning process (the education sector also seems to be beginning to respond to this -see JISC, 2006: 8-9). In the museum and the classroom, entering can be disorienting, and yet ignored as not a 'real part' of the exhibition/seminar proper. Upon entering, however, preliminary information -the position of the tutor and guidance to sit in particular locations -all orient significantly. Similarly, and perhaps more notably, leaving is also a distinct spatial and pedagogical moment. The museum found that there are exit gradients, whereby visitors speed up when they see the exit. In the education sector, this clearly mirrors the looking at watches, the move (mental and physical) to the next tightly scheduled seminar, or the school bell, all of which can unravel the narrative of the seminar. Planning of the final five minutes of a seminar is key, which spatially might include moving to be in front of the door, being opposite it to direct attention away from it, or forming the students so as to explicitly make them a coherent unit.

Between the points of entrance and exit, educators are encouraged to consider issues of positioning, the structuring process and more general relationships of movement to modes of learning. On positioning, it is noted that museum visitors tend to stay at the perimeters of exhibitions, rather than delving in to secluded areas. Closely linked here is a call to ease the movement of the visitor.These suggestions resonate for university education firstly in terms of sitting patterns in seminars, where participation can become minimized, deliberately as well as inadvertently, by being on a perimeter. Movement of the tutor, and students, responds to this. A circle therefore seems the ideal structure for avoiding outsides and ends. Crammed seating, inability to interact within the space provided, or the clumsiness of a tutor getting to a sub-group can all impact upon perceptions.

The structuring process of space management is likewise informative. Both stoppages and flow are to be considered. Regarding specific stoppages within the structuring process, decision points may be placed in the seminar room, as with the museum.Yet it is noted that, if choice is given in the process, it helps to give guidance to that decision-making process. From my own teaching experience, I have found that giving too many options stymies the situation, and indeed that students are willing, for example, to be placed into groups. This need not disempower the students, if the tutor input is understood as guidance. The Canadian museum also sets out three types of crowd flow. Areas of constant crowd flow should be communicatively terse and repetitive, to prevent visitors drifting off. In the seminar, this equates to the plenary parts of the session, in which information is given. Secondly, areas of crowd stoppage should have conceptual, unhurried exhibition pieces, provided before the visitors are able to move on. In the seminar, such focussed stoppage is to move students into small groups. There they can consider a topic without threat, and hear others' ideas, before snowball reporting on to the whole group. Thirdly, areas of variable crowd flow can be used to initiate more complex discussion, but by the presentation of a simple introduction. This is the seminar small group discussion, possibly facilitated by the tutor.

There are final museum insights on how movement, as an activity and as a process, is educationally effectual. Typologies of circulation patterns within museums are also indicative of how people move and learn in different ways, and so flow patterns (CDT, 1999: 186-9) need not be so alien to the seminar room. For example, their 'optional alcoves' in a seminar would be to offer alternative subjects to be covered, and a choice to potentially by-pass certain others. Tendencies to move towards subjects in particular ways can be controlled to effect in a seminar, as much as in an exhibition. The use of 'orientation points' correlates to the tutor moving amongst small groups, students providing feedback to comments or presentations, or 'audiovisual cues and changes in furniture layout [assisting] learners' navigation around a building, [helping] them to adjust their behaviour according to the purpose of the space' (JISC, 2006: 4).

I wish to finish this part by raising a challenging debate for education. Museums note that shape of, and movement and directiveness within, the spatial context impact upon degrees of interest within the visitor; be they 'casual', 'interested' or 'specialized'. The museum, it is argued, should work towards encompassing these different levels of interest. However, allowing scope for the 'casually' interested student is the challenging part. In the museum situation, the visitor/student has paid to visit, or at least has made a wholly free choice to visit. It may be argued they therefore have the 'right' to ignore the education if they wish. Is university education different? In the UK, post-16 years of age, formal education is not compulsory. Similarly, a financial payment has been made by or on behalf of the student. Can they therefore ignore also? I would suggest that higher/further education is slightly different in that it is a more explicitly socially constructed situation. The student has a degree of obligation, to peers, to the tutor, to the learning process, to the funder, to society. Hence, within that context, interest is a mutual responsibility. All this said, whether students are 'visitors' does not take away from the space management implications, for the seminar room, suggested by the museum. It is therefore useful to be aware of the ranges of interest that will exist. Part of the role of space management is to raise motivation beyond the base level, bringing learning above being passive.

Reflections on educational space

The seminar room is a dynamic space, and so that dynamism can be experienced.To explore this I discussed with colleagues what are their experiences of how students learn in different room arrangements. As the small rectangular university room predominates this formed the basis for discussions. Using the study by [START_REF] Griffiths | Enabling Active Learning in Small Groups: Module 5 in Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education[END_REF], and also drawing on my own teaching situations and those observed amongst colleagues, I drew out a number of scenarios for room arrangements (see Appendix 1 for some examples). I then used these as 'prompt cards' to initiate discussion with colleagues from across a range of disciplines. Clearly the student voice is missing here. However, I trust that the educator's voice still carries some resonance. The interviews and focus groups were recorded and key themes from them summarized.

Reflection was made upon spatial elements of group development and group cohesion. The position (physical, style, context and perception) of the tutor was likewise explored and key space management issues were reflected upon. The following is a brief discussion of those experiences, reflecting back on why space matters.The dynamics of space were exposed as important -personalizing the situation; the role of intimacy; the impact of directiveness; the initiation of self-reflectivity through space; the spatial context for disturbing and motivating. In each instance it does seem useful to continue to engage with experiences of space management, especially where the spaces may not be ideal.

At the start of this article I noted that space matters because of group orientation and movement with the space, and negotiation within the terrain. From the present research it strongly seems that space management has a distinct relational impact, with the orientation of a group depending heavily on the management of space. The nature of interactions and the relationships built within a group, in particular, were informed by scope and alignment of interaction. Groups that operate as all-inclusive, rather than as a number of sub-units, are more willing to share ideas and follow pedagogic processes. This is doubly important as, whilst this study did not evaluate depth of learning, it suggests that Tsui (2002: 758) is right to note that student-to-group interaction would aid confidence and enhance comprehension. Interestingly, however, it should be borne in mind that this is not, of course, clear cut. Sub-dividing groups is a spatial-pedagogical issue. The use of small groups within the whole is a well recognized educational tool and discussants felt it to be a valuable means for confidence-building. However, by considering the education process spatially, one should be conscious of the impact of breaking up the space. It was expressed that (as may be expected from such divisions) some students became isolated. Divisions allowed and developed alliances which were not necessarily constructive in wider discussions.

Reflections upon arrangements of space were similarly notable for how they impacted on the pedagogical process. Rectangular arrangements, rather than circular, elliptic or sub-divided, predominated in colleagues' experience. Obviously this mirrors room shapes; however I would suggest there is a greater significance here, as space construction is becoming normalized. Such construction means practices and relationships may too become normalized, regardless of attempts to make the situation more dynamic. Discussants agreed that rectangular arrangements encouraged confrontation over discussion, and reduced opportunity for drama. The group was not only flat in the rigidity of how they were arranged, but were flat in their engagement. Furthermore, the greater the number of students side-on to the tutor, the proportionally greater opportunity for distractedness by students. This resonates with my own experience of how much engagement such arrangements allow between tutor and students (see Figure 1). Those at the top and bottom ends of a rectangular arrangement (zones A and B) are most in my sight and so naturally a point of engagement.

However, students about two thirds along on each side were most outside potential for interaction. These are the students who have participated least (Vosko's 1984 study had found something similar -see Hiemstra, 1991: 20;Vosko, 1991: 27-29). Of course it is interesting, as one discussant noted, to question whether students who do not intend to participate select such positions (knowingly or otherwise), or whether such positioning relegates them to minimal participation. Closely related to this, a sense did seem to develop that perimeters were important in a spatial understanding of the seminar. Resonating with what museum designers have found about perimeters, tables delineate what are edges, and windows and doors provide perceptual and conceptual glimpses of the outside. Here is perhaps a quandary for a space manager. [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF] idea of 'decenteredness' is intriguing -'Within the classroom, it means avoiding the message that the room has a front or a "privileged" space. … It means that the flow of spaces must be rethought in terms of learning'. Yet removing the front alone does not remove perimeters.This study found that there can even then be a tendency to move towards perimeters, as perhaps a means of minimizing the challenge and exposure that may be implied in education. An alternative therefore, and one that struck discussants, is to utilize the potential for movement and positioning, which remove edges and thereby both fronts and centres.

Commentaries upon distance, and its impact on interactions, were likewise informative. Colleagues reported that they felt that, when in more intimate settings, where they were closest to the students, the dynamic was better. Students also responded well to the intimacy of small group arrangements, although some discussants reported this being a situation that developed only over the course of a seminar series. Conversely, potential to disengage was increased by any distance within the group, especially from the tutor. I have found that certain students, particularly disruptive members, do in fact latch on quickly to such scenarios. Yet there was agreement that this was not necessarily straightforward. Students who are most distant from a tutor may become obscured from them by others. This said, intimacy must take account of factors such as age, nationality, gender, style or even fashion which may contribute to the degrees and types of interactiveness. Personal space is obviously significant, and therefore does call in to question the idea presented that design should 'maximize the ability of faculty to get into the social space of every student … -no hiding place for students' (NLII, 2004). Furthermore, mere presence itself does seem to have an impact on social interaction. For example, tall tutors (of which I am one) may loom over students and cause strain. What this discussion strongly denoted was that a trade-off is required between group intimacy and ability to fully interact. Ongoing awareness of the impact of such issues is required of the tutor, as is much movement within the space.

An ongoing discussion

The seminar space is a dynamic construction that impacts upon the nature, method and process of education. It is not merely a room in which learning takes place. The space itself, the people within it and their movement and organization are all social constructions. However 'because we habitually take space arrangements for granted, we often fail to notice the ways in which space constrains or enhances what we intend to accomplish' [START_REF] Chism | Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces[END_REF]. Accordingly ongoing consideration needs to be given to how space is managed, especially with nonideal facilities. What has been particularly striking from my discussions with colleagues is that there may be a normalization of particular constructions of space. [START_REF] Chism | The Importance of Physical Space in Creating Supportive Learning Environments[END_REF] warn us against many assumptions around space and learning, such as that the latter only happens in classrooms, is 'pretty much the same from class to class' and that there is always a front. Yet when students orient themselves as per 'normal' and, conversely, distinct alternative arrangements radically shake things up, it may be suggested that there are standardized expectations by students of what the seminar space will look like. This resonates with what has been recently written. Learners 'can be reluctant to change an inherited configuration, even when self-management of the space is encouraged' (JISC, 2006: 25). In turn this indicates to us that any apparent new build 'blank sheet' of space management may be pre-empted by a standardization of behaviour and, even more importantly, of meaning. This suggests that both the normative process, and the scope thereby provided for effective disruption, are spatial. Groups are partly created and developed (or disintegrated) by spatial arrangements. Mixing students out of their sub-groupings, with movement, provides great potential for disturbing pedagogically.

It is important of course to note how interactions and social constructions discussed here must inherently raise issues of power within the seminar room. As a constructed space, it seems impossible to lose power, for this is the basis on which the interactions take place. Hence decisions about need for, and appropriateness of, authority, as a dimension of power, need to be made spatially. As space informs group development, there is potential for the tutor to become isolated. However, the alternative to this, of the tutor/student distinction disappearing, does not seem feasible, nor perhaps even desirable. Hence the tutor is, or perhaps needs to be, separate from, whilst within, the group. This is a difficult spatial consideration.

In more general terms, it seems useful to consider the construction of the student in the modern age. In discussions for this study, it was suggested that there may be a degree of expected passivity amongst students; theirs is a receptive position. As such the (probably undesired) starting point is not in fact one of interaction within the space. Hence the spatial challenge is to use the space as dynamically as possible to begin to engage with that starting point and subvert it. Consequently, power may have a pedagogical value, in that it be reserved and played.The two cases in this study have reinforced the importance of spatial dynamism, but have also noted the potential constraints. As looking at other 'education' sectors has suggested means for dealing with such limitations, further research in other sectors is suggested. It is correct that 'vision and design principles should emphasize the options students have as active participants in the learning process' [START_REF] Brown | Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE[END_REF]. In the meantime however, sharing of experiences, as in the present study, needs to be ongoing where non-ideal spaces must be engaged with.

Figure 1

 1 Figure 1 Zones of sight

 [email: t.montgomery@sheffield.ac.uk]


Summative and formative assessment

Perceptions and realities M A D DA L E N A TA R A S University of Sunderland, UK

ABSTRACT Assessment is critically important to education both for accreditation and to support learning. Yet the literature dealing with formative and summative assessment definitions and terminology is not aligned. This article reports an empirical small-scale study of lecturers in Education at an English university. The research posits that these lecturers, owing to the inconsistencies and infelicities in the literature, will have an incomplete and unharmonious understanding of summative and formative assessment and the relationship between the two. The results show that lecturers' understanding of assessment terminology and relationships reflects the fragmented theoretical and practical frameworks available. This study would seem to signal the need for us all to examine our assessment processes in order to (i) be clear and explicit on what we do, (ii) understand how assessment processes relate to each other, and (iii) evaluate how they impact on our practice and our students.

K E Y WO R D S : assessment, for mative, practice, summative, theory

Assessment

Is summative assessment a product or process? Is self-assessment a summative or formative assessment exercise? Can formative assessment be used for grading?

Where can we find the answers to these questions? Assessment vies with learning for supremacy at the heart of the educational experience. This is reflected in the tension between formative and summative assessment functions, that is, assessment to support learning and assessment for validation and accreditation, although these are not separate or fixed paradigms [START_REF] Wiliam | Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?[END_REF]. Given this, it is incongruous that the education community has not prioritized the harmonization of the two processes. The work of Black and that of Wiliam [START_REF] Wiliam | Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?[END_REF][START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Wiliam | Integrating Summative and Formative Functions of Assessment[END_REF]Black, 2003b;Black, 2003c;Black et al., 2003;[START_REF] Wiliam | Teachers Developing Assessment for Learning: Impact on Student Achievement[END_REF] has promoted and developed formative assessment practice in schools as has that of Torrance and Pryor (1993;1998;[START_REF] Fearn | Zeno and the Tortoise: How To Think Like a Philosopher[END_REF]; the assessment for learning movement has been fundamental in prioritizing formative assessment for learning over summative assessment for validation and accreditation despite the 'tension' between these two functions.

In the higher education and staff development context, [START_REF] Boud | Enhancing Learning Through Self Assessment[END_REF] and [START_REF] Cowan | On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher -Reflection in Action[END_REF] have promoted student self-assessment with a comparable formative aim. In all cases, pertinent feedback has been the essential element to promote learning. In the compulsory sector, the tension is exacerbated by the current separation of teacher and classroom assessment (denoted formative assessment) from external and often national assessment (denoted summative assessment). In the higher education context, it is easier to reconcile the two, and easier perhaps as a consequence, to analyse the theoretical framework, since all assessment is controlled and is the responsibility of the lecturers. However, given that lecturers, particularly those in Education departments, are those who support and help train teachers, the two contexts cannot sensibly be separate or separated. We are still at a stage where co-ordinating higher education and school issues is difficult, but cross analysis could be a key factor in helping to resolve these problems.

On the theoretical level, [START_REF] Sadler | Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems[END_REF]1998) has provided a coherent theory of formative assessment and feedback. However, this does not explicitly examine either summative assessment or its relationship with formative assessment: the few references to summative assessment do not overtly discuss or clarify the relationship. A discussion of the explicit relationship between summative and formative assessment processes has been absent from educational discussions and yet it is difficult to understand either summative or formative assessment if we are not aware of it [START_REF] Taras | Assessment -Summative and Formative -Some Theoretical Reflections[END_REF]. More seriously, the absence of this discussion has resulted in the distortion of this relationship, which has led to a misunderstanding of both assessment processes.

Functions have been widely discussed and are social parameters relating to the purpose of assessment: they influence the criteria, the goals and the standards but do not impinge on the process in any way (Scriven, 1967: 41). Even in an educational context, often it is the social needs which predominate and are open to abuse [START_REF] Broadfoot | Education, Assessment, and Society: A Sociological Analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Filer | Assessment: Social Practice and Social Product[END_REF]. Functions are many and can be combined into multiple uses [START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Sebatane | Assessment and Classroom Learning: A Response to Black & Wiliam[END_REF]. The terrors evoked by the term 'assessment' have distorted perceptions of its necessity, centrality and potential neutrality. Indeed 'assessment' is considered so negative that the term 'evaluation' was preferred for many years. Currently, formative assessment is the antiseptic version of assessment and summative assessment has come to represent all the negative social aspects (Scriven, 1967: 42).

It is this desire to suppress the negative and destructive side effect of assessment which devalues personal worth and future prospects, that has prompted many educationalists to see summative assessment in a negative light and promote formative assessment [START_REF] Torrance | Formative Assessment: Some Theoretical Problems and Empirical Questions[END_REF][START_REF] Sebatane | Assessment and Classroom Learning: A Response to Black & Wiliam[END_REF][START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Wiliam | Integrating Summative and Formative Functions of Assessment[END_REF]Torrance and Pryor, 2001: 624;Black, 2003b;Black, 2003c;Black et al., 2003). Society at large naturally, and rightly, makes judgements; the misuse of these judgements does not invalidate or minimize their necessity. It seems that the very fear of the possible social misuse of assessment has distorted our view of it (Scriven, 1967: 41). Assessment is both a natural phenomenon in that we evaluate every aspect of our lives [START_REF] Rowntree | Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them[END_REF]4), and a political issue since it normally leads to practitioners making decisions based on the dominant discourse and so exerts control over others. The dominant discourse or 'control by consent' [START_REF] Gramsci | Selection from the Prison Notebooks[END_REF][START_REF] Fairclough | Discourse and Social Change[END_REF]Talbot et al., 2003: 2, 319) in educational assessment has confused functions and process despite Scriven's warning; in addition, it has confused the relationship between formative assessment and summative assessment [START_REF] Taras | Assessment -Summative and Formative -Some Theoretical Reflections[END_REF].

Research into learning and teaching, which involves classroom pedagogy on the one hand, and the theoretical principles on which they are based on the other, is therefore of great importance to the momentum of change in education. In the assessment literature, discussion around the tension between functions of summative and formative assessment has been prevalent. Despite Black and Wiliam and the Assessment for Reform group suggesting that it is not realistic to separate the two types of assessment [START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Wiliam | Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?[END_REF], [START_REF] Wiliam | Integrating Summative and Formative Functions of Assessment[END_REF] notes how difficult it is to reconcile the two. [START_REF] Torrance | Investigating Formative Assessment:Teaching, Learning and Assessment in the Classroom[END_REF] suggest little work on formative assessment has been done as opposed to comparing summative and formative assessment: this comparison however focuses almost exclusively on the functions of assessment. Their longitudinal research, unlike that of Black et al. (2003), keeps formative assessment separate from summative assessment. A theoretical framework which is inconsistent would perhaps require segmentation of its parts to be accepted; when it is not possible to build up a composite and complete theoretical picture, since it does not exist, then, pockets or parcels of theoretical information are built up and drawn upon when required.

However, we are all land-locked by the available theoretical frameworks [START_REF] Fairclough | Discourse and Social Change[END_REF][START_REF] Stronach | Fashioning Post-modernism, Finishing Modernism: Tales from the Fitting Room[END_REF]. If these are flawed and incomplete, then it is inevitable that this will be reflected in our understanding of both the theory and the practice and the link between them. Therefore, this study will serve to illustrate how strong and binding dominant frameworks can be for a particular group in a specific context. Because of this, and in an attempt to disentangle this framework, the questionnaire given to education lecturers attempted to balance questions between the education process, product and functions of formative, summative and selfassessment.

The study has a dual purpose. Firstly, to provide some insight into lecturers' understanding of assessment practice and how it relates to theory, and secondly, to show that current frameworks perpetuate an understanding which is confused and illogical. The study posits that there will be firstly, lack of clarity in the working definitions of formative and summative assessment, and secondly, lack of clarity and understanding in the relationship between formative and summative assessment since understanding must follow the current available frameworks. A related issue is the importance of engaging explicitly with theory. Tight notes, 'Higher education researchers, for the most part, do not appear to feel the need to make their theoretical perspectives explicit, or to engage in a broader sense in theoretical debate' (Tight, 2004: 409).

Against this background, the present empirical study tests the clarity in the working definitions of formative and summative assessment and the clarity and understanding in the relationship between formative, summative and self-assessment of a group of university lecturers. Given the universality of the necessity for assessment, we need to ask ourselves comparable questions to the ones proffered in this study in order to work towards a clear understanding of a feature which is so central to education. Despite the extensive literature on formative assessment, most of us are not left with a clear understanding because most of it focuses on functions. There is an important caveat as concerns the processes of assessment and how formative, summative and self-assessment interrelate in terms of process. This research begins to explore this caveat and relate it to a group of lecturers' understanding of assessment terms, relations and processes.

Research method

The participants were lecturers in an Education department at an English university. Education lecturers were selected because they are positioned at the interface of HE and the compulsory sector. Data was collected at a staff development day to maximize data collection.This is opportunity sampling. A questionnaire with 44 questions (see Appendix 1) was given to 50 lecturers. A pilot study of the questionnaire was carried out on five members of staff and minor alterations of layout were made to the questions, and questions 17 to 21 were added, which deal with student self-assessment and the importance of theory. The questions on definitions were attenuated to 'rough definition' since staff felt nervous about not being sufficiently accurate. The questionnaires of the pilot did not form part of the final 50 questionnaires.

To ensure identical conditions, the questionnaires were filled in prior to a presentation by one of the staff. Fifty questionnaires were given out, completed and collected immediately. Staff were instructed to answer the questions in order and not to go back. Staff did not always answer all of the questions. To increase accuracy in reporting the findings, the percentages provided were all calculated out of 50, the number of people who participated, but, the figures (shown in brackets) reflect the number of responses to each question. An element of triangulation, in addition to the pilot study, existed since the staff were informed that although they should not confer on the answers, they could ask for clarification of the questions. Generally, the questions were clearly understood; few queries were raised by staff.The most notable question was the meaning of 'conflate' from one of the staff (question 9); this was roughly explained as 'carry out at the same time'. Key words were selected and analysed to find the general trends that appeared from repetition of words and ideas. Any replies that were considered difficult to classify were analysed separately.

Questions 1 and 3 asked for a rough definition of first, summative, and then, formative assessment. Questions 2 and 4 asked for examples of summative and formative tasks respectively. Question 10 asked if summative and formative tasks are conflated, and question 16, how formative work is related to summative work.These questions were qualitative in that they required a written comment. Because of this, they required analysis and interpretation before quantifying.

Results

Rough definition of summative assessment

There was a general agreement of summative assessment: 80 per cent (40/47) mentioned the word 'end' or 'final'. 36 per cent (18/47) mentioned 'grade' (3 did not reply). One person replied 'determines career prospects': this focused on the consequences of summative assessment.

Examples of a summative assessment task

48 per cent (24/49) used the words or ideas of 'exam/test'. Twenty-six per cent (13/49) gave 'end essay/assignment' which are closely related to the first group. Therefore, 74 per cent saw a summative assessment task reflecting the definition which mentioned 'end' or 'final'. Sixteen per cent (8/49) related this to formal and official exams. Therefore there was consistency in the examples over 86 per cent (46/49) of the responses (2 left this blank and 2 did not answer the question).

Rough definition of formative assessment

There was also a general consensus on the understanding of formative assessment. Eighty per cent (40/48) of lecturers mentioned 'developmental' and/or 'for learning' (2 did not reply). The definition of formative assessment also focuses on the etymological meaning. Only 28 per cent (14/48) mentioned 'feedback'.

Examples of a formative assessment task

Thirty-eight per cent (19/49) used the words or ideas of 'chatting, questioning, discussion, elicitation'. Twenty per cent (10/49) used 'essay, course work, homework'. Fourteen per cent (7/49) mention 'work, feedback' (half as many as used this idea in the definition).Ten per cent (5/49) of replies were left blank. Sixteen per cent (8/49) were difficult to classify and are as follows. The first states that 'Any task may be used formatively', but this does not state how it can be made formative by providing an example. The other seven examples describe an activity but this activity is not related to any of the characteristics which make it formative or were used to define it as formative.

An example if you conflate summative and formative tasks

Question 9 asks 'Do you conflate summative and formative tasks?' Question 10 asks 'If yes, give an example'. Only 55 per cent (27/49) answer 'yes' to question 9, and 48 per cent (24/50) reply to question 10.

How is formative work related to summative work?

Question 15 asks 'Is formative work related to summative work?' Ten per cent (5/48) replied 'no' (one was left blank), and therefore, a reply is not required from these (8 in total) for question 16, which asks, 'If yes, how is it related?'Thirty-four per cent (17/42) responded that formatively assessed work led to summative work. Forty-two per cent (21/42) noted that formative assessment formed components which build up and lead to summative assessment. Therefore, a total of 76 per cent (38/42) said that formative assessment leads to summative assessment. Three respondents did not answer the question.

Formative assessment tasks used with students

All lecturers used formative feedback, both for class work and homework (see Table 1).

Information given to students on formative assessment tasks

As Table 2 shows, 70 per cent of lecturers inform students that the task is formative assessment and 64 per cent explain how it is formative. More lecturers mark the work (70%) than grade it (30%), and most of it is related to the summative assessment work (78%).

Information on student self-assessment

Seventy per cent use student self-assessment with their students, as can be seen from Table 3. Fifty-eight per cent of lecturers believe that selfassessment is related to formative assessment. Twenty-eight per cent state that they present self-assessment as summative assessment; 60 per cent state that they do not. However, 30 per cent believe that self-assessment is both summative and formative assessment.

Is theory important to us as teachers?

Ninety-six per cent agreed that theory is important to us as teachers and 4 per cent said 'sometimes' (see Table 4).

Summative and formative assessment used for end-or mid-course grades

The responses to the questions set out in Table 5 focus on the functions of assessment. Ninety-eight per cent agree that summative assessment can be used for end-course grades. Seventy-six per cent state summative assessment can be used for mid-course grades. However, 20 per cent state that summative assessment cannot be used for mid-course grades. 56 per cent agree formative assessment can be used for end-course grades, but 66 per cent that formative assessment can be used for mid course grades. Thirty per cent graded formative assessment tasks, 66 per cent say formative assessment can be used for mid-course grades, and 56 per cent for end-course grades.

Summative and formative assessment assess product and/or process

As Table 6 shows, 90 per cent of lecturers see summative assessment as assessing a product more than assessing a process (58%). For formative assessment it is the opposite; 86 per cent see it as assessing process and 70 per cent as assessing the product.

Summative and formative assessment for validation (grading) or for learning

The responses to the questions set out in Table 7 focus on the functions of assessment. Eighty-four per cent use summative assessment for validation (grading) and only 48 per cent use formative assessment. Forty per cent would not use formative assessment for assignments for validation (grading). Eighty-two per cent state that summative assessment provides useful feedback (question 34). Also, 78 per cent state that summative assessment can be used for learning (question 31). Formative assessment is considered the predominant focus for learning (90%), although it is also high for summative assessment (78%).

Summative and formative assessment provide useful feedback

As Table 8 demonstrates, 82 per cent say summative assessment provides useful feedback and 96 per cent for formative assessment.

Summative and formative assessments are different or similar processes

As Table 9 shows, 68 per cent state 'summative and formative assessment are different processes'. Fifty per cent agree that they are similar processes.

Sure/unsure how summative and formative assessment relate

Table 10 reveals that 80 per cent are sure of how summative and formative assessment relate to each other, 4 per cent are not sure as are the 16 per cent who do not reply.

Students understand/focus on summative and formative assessment

Table 11 shows that 74 per cent think students understand summative assessment while only 60 per cent think they understand formative assessment. 82 per cent thought students focused on summative assessment. Only 32 per cent thought students focused on formative assessment. Sixteen per cent of lecturers think students focus on both.

Discussion of results

Rough definition of summative assessment

It is interesting that the etymological meaning of 'final' and 'end' was foremost in the minds of the lecturers (80%). Although we might expect to link grades with summative assessment, only just over a third (36%) focused on this: perhaps because in the compulsory school context, much of in-class assessment is not necessarily graded, particularly in the primary sector.

Examples of a summative assessment task

The examples of external exams or assignments (86%) would normally require a grade. It is surprising that so few lecturers include the use of a grade (36%) in the definition of summative assessment. This would indicate an anomaly.

Rough definition of formative assessment

In the definition of formative assessment it is surprising that only 28 per cent mention 'feedback' as this is central to the definition [START_REF] Sadler | Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Torrance | Developing Formative Assessment in the Classroom: Using Action Research To Explore and Modify Theory[END_REF]Black et al., 2003). It is difficult to see how lecturers could envisage formative assessment being either developmental or for learning if feedback is not provided; this is another anomaly.

Examples of a formative assessment task

Conflating summative and formative tasks

There was consistency across the replies which gave examples of tasks which conflate summative and formative assessment. Formative assessment was represented as parts, units or aspects of learning or feedback and this formative assessment contributes to the whole, which is summative assessment. These replies comprised 20 out of 24 of the responses. These replies all imply that formative assessment leads to summative assessment and that consequently formative assessment must precede summative assessment: this is a continuation of the trend found in the definition of formative assessment.

How is formative work related to summative work?

If we work with the etymological meaning as central to the definitions, then it could be argued that logically, developmental work will lead to summative work and not vice versa. It could be argued, rightly, as do two lecturers, that formative and summative assessment feed into each other and are cyclical. In this sense the formative assessment from the previous summative assessment can feed into the following summative assessment.

The key question is whether formative or summative assessment is the starting point. Assessment requires a judgement before providing advice for improvement. Seventy-six per cent of lecturers have followed the framework of the relationship between summative and formative assessment as promoted by [START_REF] Wiliam | Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?[END_REF] and by Black et al. (2003), that is to say, that formative assessment leads to summative assessment.

Formative assessment tasks used with students

All lecturers used formative feedback, both for class work and homework. This indicates that they practise what they preach and set a good example to their student teachers by using it extensively themselves. Like Black et al.'s teachers (2003: 53), lecturers do not find it either necessary or logical to separate summative and formative assessment. However, the drawback with conflating summative and formative assessment tasks is that it excludes the possibility of using iterative feedback for learning from formative assessment tasks in order to improve summative assessment tasks.

Information given to students on formative assessment tasks

Seventy per cent of lecturers inform students that the task is formative assessment and 64 per cent explain how it is formative. More lecturers mark the work (70%) than grade it (30%), and most of it is related to the summative assessment work (78%). Marking and providing feedback without a grade has been shown to help students' learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998: 144;Taras, 2003: 561;Black et al., 2003: 42-9).This allows learners to focus on their work without the pressure and censure of the grade. Also, relating the formative assessment to the summative assessment work will permit an iterative cycle of feedback. Grading formative assessment work (30%) would eliminate much of the formative aspect if the grades are subsequently used [START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF]. Seventy per cent of lecturers mark and provide feedback on the formative assessment work. Since only 28 per cent mention feedback as being important to the definition of formative assessment, this seems to show a caveat in the definition. It also points to lecturers being more conversant with good practice than with producing accurate definitions.

Information on student self-assessment

A high percentage (70%) of the respondents use student self-assessment with their students. Fifty-eight per cent believe that self-assessment is related to formative assessment. This is in keeping with the work of Black et al. (2003: 7, 49), who classify self-assessment as a formative exercise. But this is in contradiction to the generally accepted theoretical frameworks of [START_REF] Sadler | Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems[END_REF]1998) and [START_REF] Scriven | The Methodology of Evaluation[END_REF], both of whom state that self-assessment is the student equivalent of summative assessment. Although self-assessment is often used as a formative assessment exercise and requires students to provide themselves with feedback, self-assessment, per se, is equivalent to summative assessment. It requires the explicit step of providing feedback (and technically, using it, as stated by [START_REF] Sadler | Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems[END_REF]) for it to become formative assessment.Twentyeight per cent state that they present self-assessment as summative assessment; 60 per cent state that they do not. However, this is confused by the fact that 30 per cent of lecturers believe that self-assessment is both summative and formative assessment. As these are defined as being so different, it is difficult to see how self-assessment can be both -unless academics are once again being misled by the literature which purports to differentiate summative and formative assessment only essentially by differences in function [START_REF] Wiliam | Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?[END_REF][START_REF] Torrance | Investigating Formative Assessment:Teaching, Learning and Assessment in the Classroom[END_REF][START_REF] Fearn | Zeno and the Tortoise: How To Think Like a Philosopher[END_REF]Black et al., 2003).

Is theory important to us as teachers?

Ninety-six per cent agreed that theory is important to us as teachers and 4 per cent said 'sometimes'. The response would seem to indicate that any shortfall in the number of answers to other questions is due to doubt. Black et al. (2003: 23) note teachers wanted updating on theory when they were asked to do something new by focusing on formative assessment.

Summative and formative assessment used for end-or mid-course grades

Ninety-eight per cent agree summative assessment can be used for endcourse grades. Seventy-six per cent state summative assessment can be used for mid-course grades. However, 20 per cent state that summative assessment cannot be used for mid-course grades. This is a strange conclusion since it seems obvious that at any time a summation at that point is possible [START_REF] Scriven | The Methodology of Evaluation[END_REF]. Fifty-six per cent agree formative assessment can be used for end-course grades, but 66 per cent that formative assessment can be used for mid-course grades. From this it seems the lecturers are not absolutely sure about what uses formative assessment can have in relation to grading, and also the role of summative assessment when it is not a 'final' summation, indicating doubt and confusion, which would be transferred to student teachers. Only 30 per cent graded formative assessment tasks, and yet here 66 per cent say formative assessment can be used for mid-course grades and 56 per cent for end-course grades. On the one hand, both figures seem very high when the definition provided initially does not mention grades, and on the other, it perhaps shows a conscious choice to carry out formative assessment and not use grades.

Summative and formative assessment assess product and/or process

Ninety per cent see summative assessment as assessing a product more than assessing a process. For formative assessment it is the opposite, 86 per cent see it as assessing process. This confirms the tendency that has been evident throughout the questionnaire, that is, to consider summative assessment as a final, product-based activity and formative assessment as an intermittent in-course activity which is process based. Confusing the process of assessment with the product is one of the most important problems and sources of misunderstanding. Both summative and formative assessment can assess either process or product.

Summative and formative assessment for validation (grading) or for learning

Eighty-four per cent use summative assessment for validation (grading) and only 48 per cent use formative assessment. Forty per cent would not use formative assessment for assignments for validation (grading).This is worrying because it implies that almost half of the lecturers (40%) would not consider using formative assessment if the assignments are required for grading, thus robbing students of feedback for learning, even if the assessment is for mid-course grades. Therefore, work for validation (grading) would seem to exclude the use of feedback for learning.This is a non-sequitur since 82 per cent of lecturers state that summative assessment provides useful feedback (question 34). Also, 78 per cent state that summative assessment can be used for learning (question 31).This contradicts the replies to question 25, where 66 per cent state that formative assessment can be used for mid-course grades.

Formative assessment is considered the predominant focus for learning (90%), although it is also high for summative assessment (78%). Again, the clearest aspect is that summative assessment is a terminal activity for official purposes, but when dealing with aspects of the relationship between summative and formative assessment, opinions are much less clear.

Summative and formative assessment provide useful feedback

Eighty-two per cent say summative assessment provides useful feedback and 96 per cent for formative assessment. However, only 28 per cent of lecturers mentioned feedback in the definition of formative assessment (question 3).

Summative and formative assessments are different or similar processes

Sixty-eight per cent state 'summative and formative are different processes'. This follows the current frameworks of assessment which require teachers to repeat and duplicate the assessment process if both summative and formative assessment are needed [START_REF] Torrance | Formative Assessment: Some Theoretical Problems and Empirical Questions[END_REF]Wiliam and Black, 1996: 544;Wiliam, 2000: 1, 15-16;Black, 2003c: 1). [START_REF] Taras | Assessment -Summative and Formative -Some Theoretical Reflections[END_REF] notes that the perceived necessity of duplicating assessment has been a potential problem to the development of formative assessment. Fifty per cent of respondents in this survey agree that summative and formative assessment are similar processes; however, similar does not mean the same and a weaker version of the above argument could still apply for these.

Sure/unsure how summative and formative assessment relate

Eighty per cent are sure of how summative and formative assessment relate to each other, 4 per cent are not sure as are the 16 per cent who do not reply.This goes to show that we do not always understand processes which we carry out every day and take for granted.

Students understand/focus on summative and formative assessment

These answers are perturbing since any shortfall from 100 per cent indicates that lecturers believe students are carrying out assessment which they do not understand. Seventy-four per cent think students understand summative assessment while only 60 per cent think they understand formative assessment. This raises three issues: one, lecturers believe students are working below capacity; two, students may take this lack of understanding to their own teaching; three, lecturers are not addressing these problems. Eighty-two per cent thought students focused on summative assessment. Only 32 per cent thought students focused on formative assessment. Unsurprisingly, most of the literature supports this view for education in general [START_REF] Torrance | Formative Assessment: Some Theoretical Problems and Empirical Questions[END_REF][START_REF] Sebatane | Assessment and Classroom Learning: A Response to Black & Wiliam[END_REF][START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Wiliam | Integrating Summative and Formative Functions of Assessment[END_REF]Torrance and Pryor, 2001: 624;Black, 2003b;Black, 2003c;Black et al., 2003). Sixteen per cent of lecturers think students focus on both.

Conclusion

Since this was a small-scale study of just 50 lecturers in a single institution, we should keep in mind that the results cannot be used to generalize; however, they can serve to illuminate. Evaluation of the results has found that lecturers were not clear on their understanding of summative, formative and self-assessment, nor were they clear or consistent when reporting on the relationship between them. This will inevitably impact on their assessment of their students and transmit mixed and confusing messages when discussing theoretical issues. The greatest confusion and contradiction exists in definition of terms and of how summative and formative assessment relate to each other in the assessment process (in questions 1-4, 5-9, 10, 16 and 36-7). The superficial and etymological meanings were the point of focus and not the distinguishing features. In terms of functions of assessment, used as the central distinguishing feature between summative and formative assessment by [START_REF] Wiliam | Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?[END_REF], these are not clear in lecturers' minds either (questions 22-25 and 30-33). In addition, feedback, which is the distinguishing feature of most definitions of formative assessment [START_REF] Sadler | Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Torrance | Developing Formative Assessment in the Classroom: Using Action Research To Explore and Modify Theory[END_REF]Black et al., 2003), is not seen as such for most lecturers (see questions 3, 4, 11-15 and 34-5). Furthermore, contradictions surface in the relationship of summative and formative assessment to self-assessment (questions 22-25). Lecturers are not confident that students are clear on issues concerning summative and formative assessment: this is serious and may be due to the lack of certainty in their own minds. For an education community that wishes to support learning through formative assessment, the current frameworks of assessment are prohibitive as they require teachers to repeat and duplicate the assessment process if both summative and formative assessment are needed (Black, 2003c: 1;[START_REF] Torrance | Formative Assessment: Some Theoretical Problems and Empirical Questions[END_REF]Wiliam and Black, 1996: 544;Wiliam, 2000: 1, 15-16).

Pertinent to these results is one of Tight's conclusions concerning the importance of engaging with theory in higher education.

I wouldn't wish to argue that all higher education researchers should engage to a much greater extent with theory, as there should be room for researchers and research of all kinds and at all levels. I do think, however, that there is a need for more theoretical engagement so that the field (or community of practice) can develop further, and gain more credibility and respect. (Tight, 2004: 409) On the positive side, the data show extensive use of formative assessment by the tutors, mainly in the classroom but also a substantial amount in the form of homework (questions 5-9 and 11-15). This shows a clear focus on wishing to promote assessment to support learning. This is also evident since student self-assessment is relatively widespread and it is used more frequently as a formative assessment exercise than a summative assessment one.

This study has served to highlight some of the complexities and issues of assessment, particularly of summative and formative assessment. It also shows that much needs to be done to resolve misunderstandings and contradictions in the minds of university lecturers. For a group of lecturers who were 80 per cent sure that they understood the relationship between summative and formative assessment, a closer analysis of their replies showed evidence that the reality was far less clear than their perceptions. Assessment is central to validation and accreditation, it has been found to be central to promoting student learning [START_REF] Black | Assessment and Classroom Learning[END_REF] and it is critical to aligning and cementing learning and teaching. Added to the fact that assessment is probably the single most onerous and timeconsuming task that lecturers normally perform, it is crucial that we get assessment right. This study indicates there is much to do.

Future research needs to ask how we can reconcile formative and summative assessment so that they are mutually supportive: examining the processes of assessment seems one possible means of doing this [START_REF] Taras | Assessment -Summative and Formative -Some Theoretical Reflections[END_REF]. Further future research could examine how we can reconcile processes with functions and how we can ring-fence functions so that the intended functions are carried forward to the reality. Leading directly from this study, it is clear that the understanding of assessment issues by lecturers could be explored more extensively and efficiently in further and larger studies. Another important and neglected aspect is learners' involvement and perceptions of assessment processes. Much work needs to be done. However, as individuals, we can examine and question our own understanding of assessment, of our own processes and the implications and impact for ourselves and our students.

Table 1 Formative assessment tasks used with students

 1

	Questions 5-9	5. FA tasks 6. In class 7. For	8. FA SA	9. FA and
		used		homework	separate	SA
						conflated
	Yes	100%	86%	78%	38%	54%
		(48/48)	(43/48)	(39/49)	(19/47)	(27/49)
	No	0	10%	20%	46%	38%
			(5/48)	(10/49)	(23/47)	(19/49)
	Sometimes				10%	6%
					(5/47)	(3/49)

Sometimes was not in the questionnaire, but it was added by staff

Table 2 Information given to students on formative assessment tasks

 2

	Questions	11. Tell	12. Explain	13. Is FA	14. Is FA	15. Is FA
	11-15	students	how task	work	work	work
		task is	is Formative	marked?	graded?	related to
		Formative	Assessment			SA?
		Assessment
	Yes	70%	64%	70%	30%	78%
		(35/50)	(32/50)	(35/50)	(15/48)	(39/48)
	No	30%	36%	24%	58%	10%
		(15/50)	(18/50)*	(12/50)	(29/48)	(5/48)
	Sometimes			6%	8%	8%
				(3/50)	(4/48)	(4/48)

Sometimes was not in the question, but it was added by staff * 5 chose 'neither' which equates to 'no'

Table 3 Information on student self-assessment (SSA)

 3

	Questions	17. Do students 18. Do you	19. Do you	20. Does SSA
	17-20	do SSA ?	present SSA	present SSA as	use both FA
			as Formative	Summative	and SA ?
			Assessment ?* Assessment ?**
	Yes	70% (35/50)	58% (29/49)	28%% (14/46)	30% (15/49)
	No	28% (14/50)	36% (18/49)	60% (30/46)	66% (33/49)
	Sometimes	2% (1/50)	4% (2/49)	4% (2/46)	2% (1/49)

* 1 said 'Not applicable' ** 2 said 'Not applicable'

Table 4 Is theory important to us as teachers?

 4

	Question 21	Is theory important to us as teachers ?
	Yes	96% (48/50)
	No	0
	Sometimes	4% (2/50)

Table 5 Summative and formative assessment can be used for end-or mid- course grades

 5

	Questions	22. SA can be	23. FA can be	24. SA can be 25. FA can be
	22-25	used for end	used for end	used for mid	used for mid
		of course grades of course grades course grades course grades
	Yes	98% (49/50)	56% (28/49)	76% (38/49)	66% (33/50)
	No	2% (1/5)	40% (20/49)	20% (10/49)	32% (16/50)
	Don't	0	2% (1/49)	2% (1/49)	2% (1/50)
	understand

Table 6 Summative and formative assessment assess product and/or process

 6

	Questions 26. SA assesses 27. SA assesses 28. FA assesses 29. FA assesses
	26-29	product	process	product	process
	Yes	90% (45/48)	58% (29/47)	70% (35/45)	86% (43/50)
	No	0	30% (15/47)	14% (7/45)	10% (5/50)
	Sometimes	6% (3/48)	6% (3/47)	6% (3/45)	4% (2/50)

Table 7 Summative and formative assessment assess for validation (grad- ing) or for learning

 7

	Questions 30. SA assesses 31. SA assesses 32. FA assesses 33. FA assesses
	30-33	for validation	for learning	for validation	for learning
	Yes	84% (42/47)	78% (39/48)	48% (24/47)	90% (45/46)
	No	4% (2/47)	12% (6/48)	40% (20/47)	0
	Sometimes	6% (3/47)	6% (3/48)	6% (3/47)	2% (1/46)

Table 9 Summative and formative assessment are different or similar processes

 9

	Questions 36-37	36. SA and FA are	37. SA and FA are
		different processes	similar processes
	Yes	68% (34/48)	50% (25/46)
	No	22% (11/48)	30% (15/46)
	Sometimes	6% (3/48)	12% (6/46)

Table 8 Summative and formative assessment provide useful feedback

 8

	Questions	34. SA provides	35. FA provides
	34-35	useful feedback	useful feedback
	Yes	82% (41/50)	96% (48/50)
	No	12% (6/50)	2% (1/50)
	Sometimes	6% (3/50)	2% (1/50)

Table 11 Students understand/focus on summative and formative assessment

 11

	Questions	39. Students	40. Students	41. Students 42. Students
	39-42	understand SA	understand FA	focus on SA	focus on FA
	Yes	74% (37/50)	60% (30/50)	82% (42/49)	32% (16/49)
	No	10% (5/50)	26% (13/50)	12% (6/49)	50% (25/49)
	Sometimes	16% (8/50)	14% (7/50)	2% (1/49)	14% (7/49)

Table 10 Sure/unsure how summative and formative assessment relate

 10

	Questions 38	38. I am SURE/NOT SURE how summative and
		formative relate to each other.
	Sure	80% (40/42)
	Not sure	4% (2/42)

  There are two types of processes discernable in the examples.The first, resented by 'chatting, questioning, discussion, elicitation' (38%) is in line withBlack et al.'s (2003) central definition of formative assessment as being a classroom-based process which impacts on teaching: one reply mentions 'teaching strategy' explicitly. The second corresponds to[START_REF] Sadler | Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems[END_REF] definition, whichBlack et al. (2003) also use intermittently for formative assessment, and is a product-based focus. Only 14 per cent use the idea of 'work, feedback' (half as many as used this idea in the definition).That such a small percentage of lecturers mention feedback in either the definition or examples of formative assessment is perhaps one of the most disturbing findings of the study.

APPENDIX 1

QUESTIONNAIRE on Summative and Formative Assessment

Please circle YES -NO choice.


E P Ly N N

B A L Dw I N

Whilst educators are increasingly making use of technology to assist their learners, albeit slowly in places, the 'traditional' classroom/lecture theatre is still the norm for many. However, with far greater numbers of students coming into higher education these days, dealing with large numbers poses particular challenges as we seek to engage with our learners. This is perhaps made more difficult for those of us who are but a speck at the front of the lecture theatre, often obscured still further by a console centre, as some 800 or more students sit in a dimmed room. The word 'theatre' conveys with it the sense of performance, and it is all too easy for educators, on their 'stage' at the front of the 'theatre', to see it as such. We step onto that stage for our 'audience', who wait for the 'performance' to begin and, unless we are careful, or knowledgeable about the alternatives available to us, it is all too easy for the hour to be an opportunity for us to demonstrate our own skills and abilities for the delivery of, and engagement with, the subject matter. What happens on the stage, and in the lecture theatre or classroom itself, in part affects attendance, motivation and all manner of aspects which help (or hinder) our learners in their engagement with the subject matter, and each other. Participation, as well as other factors associated with engagement (or not), is a core theme linking the articles which comprise this issue.

Given that there are few opportunities for learners to speak in our classrooms, unless the numbers are very small and the educator particularly skilled, the 'silent participant' is familiar to us all. The authors of the first article, 'The silent participant in small group collaborative learning contexts', Louisa Remedios, David Clarke and Lesleyanne Hawthorne at the University of Melbourne, Australia, discuss this issue in relation to groupwork, where we often expect, or demand, that our learners speak, in the belief that speaking equals engagement, and that failing to speak signals a failure to wish to, or lack of ability to be able to, 'engage' in any way. As the authors rightly comment, the literature reflects the perception that quiet or silent students can be viewed as 'problematic', and silence perceived as failure of one sort or another. Whilst silence in a large lecture theatre is perhaps the only choice, even for the most vocal of learners, in the small group setting we expect, or even demand, that learners speak aloud.

article discusses the reasons why certain students might be reluctant to do so, including the notion of 'cultural literacy', whether as a native speaker in their country of birth or otherwise. The article explores the behaviours of home and overseas students in the small group setting and takes a closer look at four 'silent participants' in particular in order to better understand the reasons for their silence. The authors rightly conclude that we, as educators, need to be absolutely clear about whether we wish our learners to learn the 'content' side of the subject matter or whether we are instead seeking to improve their skills in speaking aloud. Whilst both are concerned with learning, we must not forget that we are most likely going to assess our learners at some point. It is therefore even more important that we are clear whether we are measuring, and assessing, their knowledge of the 'content' or instead their skills of the verbal delivery of that 'content', as these are two very different things. If we choose to help them to develop their skills of verbal delivery, then, as the authors rightly say, we need to help them to develop this skill, and not just force them to speak, in the hope that this, alone, will improve their skills.

The skill of speaking is, along with writing, one of production as opposed to one of comprehension. It is relatively easy to measure, and thus to assess, the speaking or writing skills of our learners should we choose to do so. Indeed, it is something that we need to consider very carefully when planning assessment tasks, and when marking them, as we need to be very clear as to how much emphasis we are placing on (and the marks we give for) the actual speaking or writing (the 'delivery') itself and how much weight (and the marks) we give to what they know, that is, the 'content'. Reading and listening are skills not of production but instead of comprehension, and are both as essential as those of production. The second article, entitled 'Listening to students: how to make written assessment feedback useful', by Agnes Rae and David Cochrane, looks at what we write to students in terms of feedback on their performance. As they rightly say, feedback is essential, and we often provide this in written form, for various reasons, pedagogic and other. The written medium is, however, an impoverished one, and it is thus not surprising that learners are not entirely happy with what we write. Whilst the authors say that our learners want feedback that is 'meaningful and constructive', which none of us would disagree with, what is 'meaningful' to one learner may not be so to another, and what is 'meaningful' to us may not be so to anyone else, learner or other.Written feedback is, then, necessarily problematic, for various reasons. One of the difficulties is reported by the authors, who say that in addition to (or instead of) providing feedback on their actual performance, feedback should instead (or also) be about 'growth rather than grading'. Whilst the authors say that 'justifying the mark awarded' is following merely 'a traditional model' it is nonetheless what we are required to do, as we have to justify the marks not only to the student, but also to our institutions and to those who fund them in order to provide evidence of our quality of provision. So, there is a necessary tension between serving the needs of 'justifying the mark awarded' with that of providing feedback which, we hope, serves to help our learners to improve their future performance and/or which helps them to 'grow' as learners. Or, more accurately, to 'grow' as individuals, whether as students in higher education (a very short 'window' of learning, and in a formal setting) or as individuals per se. Whatever problems we, ourselves, create in terms of providing feedback that is less than 'meaningful and constructive', no one could argue that, if we are to do better, gathering data from students of their perceptions of our feedback will likely help us to improve it. To this end, the authors describe a study seeking to find out how useful students find written feedback on their assessment. The authors conclude with a heuristic model which may assist us in improving this vital aspect. Feedback, personalized or otherwise, to learners in a class of, say, 1,000 students is no easy task, and 'consistency' is naturally desirable but all the more difficult to achieve with multiple markers and with such large numbers of students, it might be argued. That said, feedback is certainly a vital aspect of helping our learners to reflect on their skills and abilities and to improve them, and there is likely much that we can learn and do in order to improve our own performance in providing it.

Feedback is provided in many ways, and feedback via the educator is but one of these. If, as argued in the previous article, feedback is about 'growth' not 'grading', then team/groupwork is a fertile environment for the 'growth' of an individual. Learning from each other is a means of learning both about oneself and also about others, and many might argue that our learners learn more from this than from any written feedback that we provide, however good it might be. As the authors of the third article rightly say, the ability to work effectively in a team/group setting is as important in the workplace as it is in higher education, and so it is no wonder that we, as educators, provide opportunities for students to develop the skills involved in teamwork. The article entitled 'Using action research to teach students to manage team learning and improve teamwork satisfaction', by Brenda Scott-Ladd and Christopher Chan, at Murdoch University, Australia, and York University, Canada, respectively, reports findings from a study which explores the strategies that learners use to develop their skills of working in a team/group.The authors provide an overview of the literature citing the unquestionable benefits of learning in teams/groups, 'a relatively safe environment' which allows learners to practise their skills, including those of cooperation and collaboration, resolving conflict, negotiating, problem solving, critical thinking, and others. Vitally, say the authors, team/groupwork builds that which is not easily taught, namely,'self-efficacy, self-worth and adaptability', and the importance of feeling 'connected to each other, with a sense of working toward a shared, time-bounded goal'. That said, all of us would readily agree that 'the reality for many students falls short of this', despite our best efforts. The 'problems', say the authors, concern 'the team process, member expectations and the logistics of coordinating activities', which they describe further. The approach designed to minimize these problems, described in the article, centres on the need for us to better set up the tasks in the first place and to teach learners to better manage the processes.

Working in a team/group setting can be a very positive one for many learners, but for others it can be very demotivating indeed. What motivates, and demotivates, our learners is the subject of the fourth article, 'The importance of establishing relevance in motivating student learning' by David Kember, Amber Ho and Celina Hong at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. All too easily can we, the educators, demotivate our learners, despite wishing and trying to do the very opposite, say the authors. Citing and discussing the literature on motivation, the authors raise the issues of three types of motivation, namely, goal types, sources of enjoyment and general motivation to learn, as well as the four motivational conditions of interest, relevance, expectancy and satisfaction. The article is particularly concerned with the relevance aspect here, which is argued to be an area that has not been given sufficient prominence in the literature.To this end, the authors report a study seeking to provide a characterization of the learning/teaching environments which might provide the capability of motivating or demotivating learners. The findings suggest that we need to revisit 'the traditional building block curriculum' and, in particular, to focus our attention on the early stages of a degree programme, regardless of discipline.The lecture, still the norm in higher education, has the potential to motivate/inspire, but also to do the very opposite. We can all think back to our school or university days and recall the inspiring, superb teacher x or the dull and dreary teacher y; these stick in our memories even if, as time goes on, what they were actually delivering, content-wise, is unable to be recalled. No wonder, then, that the use of lectures is 'heavily criticized from an andragogical viewpoint', says Benjamin Dyson, author of the fifth and final article, entitled 'Assessing small-scale interventions in large-scale teaching: a general methodology and preliminary data'. Dyson rightly says that educators have a challenge on their hands 'to provide opportunities for active learning during these sessions' if we are to better engage them. Providing a detailed critique of the lecture, and the notions of active and passive learning, the author rightly concludes that many of us have much to learn in order to improve the experience that both learner and teacher have of being in the lecture theatre. However, if we are teaching large numbers of students, this is no mean feat. The author cites literature showing that, whilst many of us now employ technology to assist in this, there are more 'low-tech solutions', and these are termed 'interactive windows'. These might involve giving handouts to students to complete, buzz groups and other groupwork, or 'just' having a break.The focus of this article is, however, on three 'interventions', each providing a one-minute 'interactive window'. These 'interventions' were designed to take place approximately 20, 30 and 40 minutes into the lecture, and data were gathered over a five-week period. We might make our lectures 'much more useful in terms of student learning' says the author, which can be only a good thing. The results of this study, and indeed the article itself, make for absorbing reading.