Assessment for learning - Formative Assessment

Assessment for learning was originally conceived of as formative assessment and placed in contrast to summative assessment. Michael Scriven proposed the terms formative and summative in 1967 to explain two distinct roles that evaluation could play in evaluating curriculum. In the years to follow, Benjamin Bloom and colleagues (1969; 1971) suggested applying the same distinction to the evaluation of student learning— ―what we tend today to call assessment‖ (Wiliam, 2006, p. 283). Subsequently, the terms formative and summative have become fundamental to understanding assessment in education. Summative assessment focuses on summing up or summarizing achievement of students, classes, schools, etc. (Bloom, Hastings, & Madus, 1971; National Research Council [NRC], 2001; Sadler, 1989; Shavelson, 2006). Formative assessment centers on active feedback loops that assist learning (Black & Wiliam, 2004; Sadler, 1989; Shavelson, 2006). Recently, some scholars have begun to refer to summative assessment as assessment of learning and formative assessment as assessment for learning (Black & Wiliam, 2003; Broadfoot, 2008; Gipps & Stobart, 1997; Stiggins, 2002).

In the years since Scriven‘s identification and Bloom‘s extension of summative and formative assessment types, ―the interest (and investment) in summative assessment has far outstripped that accorded to formative assessment‖ (Stiggins, 2005, p. 326). Black and Wiliam (2003) discuss in some detail the ups and downs of formative assessment during the 1970s through the late 1980s. In the late 1980s, two substantial review articles (Crooks, 1988; Natriello, 1987) and a seminal piece on the function of formative assessment in the development of expertise (Sadler, 1989) boosted interest in assessment for learning. This growing interest appeared to be substantiated with Fuchs and Fuchs‘ (1986) meta-analysis and Black and Wiliam‘s (1998) comprehensive review of about 250 articles. Both studies reported significantly positive student learning gains. The Black and Wiliam (1998) work demonstrated gains of a half to a full standard deviation, with low-achieving students making the largest increase. Although Dunn and Mulvenon (2009) have recently contested the conclusiveness of these two studies,1 other recent research has also shown positive impact on student learning (e.g., Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Ruiz- Primo & Furtak, 2006). Moreover, Dunn and Mulvenon (2009) were unable to present any examples of formative assessment producing negative achievement results.

In addition to the consensus emerging around the potential benefits of formative assessment practice, scholars generally agree that formative assessment is the process of using information about students‘ learning on the course of instruction to make decisions to improve learning (Atkin, Black, & Coffey, 2001; Bell & Cowie, 2001; Black, 1993; Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003; Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2004; Harlen, Gipps, Broadfoot, & Nuttall, 1992; Harlen & James, 1996; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996; Shepard, 2000).

How the process of formative assessment is conceptualized and implemented still varies somewhat, but all of the researchers listed above agree that regular testing and simply informing students of their scores does not constitute formative assessment. Instead, according to Black and associates (2004), the evidence of student understanding (and learning) evoked from one round of the formative assessment process should be ―used to adapt the teaching work to meet learning needs‖ (p. 2). In 2007, Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers State Collaborative (FAST SCASS) of the Council of Chief State Officers with national and international researchers in formative assessment identified five attributes of the formative assessment process from the literature. They are as follows:

 Learning progressions should clearly articulate the sub-goals of the ultimate learning goal.

 Learning goals and criteria for success should be clearly identified and communicated to students.

 Students should be provided with evidence-based feedback that is linked to the intended instructional outcomes and criteria for success.

 Both self- and peer-assessment are important for providing students an opportunity to think metacognitively about their learning.

 A classroom culture in which teachers and students are partners in learning should be established. Margaret Heritage (2007) of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) folded the attributes into a model of the formative assessment process that is applicable . The process focuses the work on the following four elements of formative assessment: learning progressions, including learning goals and success criteria, identifying the gap, eliciting evidence of learning, teacher assessment, teacher feedback, and student involvement.