resource 1307

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

1/20

>> April 2013WestEd >>

Understanding FormativeAssessment

Insights from Learning Theory and

Measurement Theory

by Elise Trumbull and Andrea Lash

This paper explores ormative assessment, a process intended to yield

inormation about student learninginormation that teachers can

use to shape instruction to meet students needs and that students

can use to better understand and advance their learning. This pur-posepromoting learning by inorming instructiondistinguishes

it rom other kinds o student assessment, such as diagnostic, which

is used to identiy students who have special learning needs, or sum-

mative, which is used by teachers to orm nal judgments about

what students have learned by the end o a course, or is used at the

state level or the purpose o evaluating schools.

Increasingly, educators are calling

or education assessment systems

that are more balanced, and that

yield useul inormation or a vari-

ety o education purposes, rom

how to shape ongoing instruction

in the classroom to accountability

decisions made at the state level

(Darling-Hammond & Pecheone,

2010; Pellegrino, 2006; Wilson

& Draney, 2004; Pellegrino,

Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). They

are also calling or coherent sys-

tems, in which assessments at all

levels (rom classroom to state)

would be aligned with the same

learning goals and views o what

constitutes learning and would

produce relevant inormation

about student learning over time

(Herman, 2010; Pellegrino, 2006).

The purpose o this paper is to help

readers understand the impor-

tance and potential o ormative

assessment as a key component o

This paper comes at a time in

education when this last purpose,

school accountability, has been

dominating assessment use or

more than a quarter o a century

(Shepard, 2006). Since implemen-

tation o No Child Let Behind in

2001, state departments o edu-

cation have assessed students

annually in English language

arts and mathematics with tests

that survey a broad spectrum

o content. Although each stu-

dent is assessed, these tests arenot intended to help identiy an

individual students learning

needs or to provide inormation

that can be used to modiy sub-

sequent instruction. Instead, the

tests serve an accounting or mon-

itoring unction, such as counting

the number o individuals who

meet grade-level standards; testresults o individual students are

aggregated into reports o school

and district progress, reports

that are useul or district- and

state-level decision-makers. But

while such tests may identiy

students who lack the knowledge

and skills expected or their grade

level, these achievement tests do

not identiy why students are not

profcient; the tests are not linked

closely enough to classroom

instruction and curriculum to

identiy what misconceptions stu-

dents hold or what skills they are

missing, inormation that could

help guide instruction.

This paper is one in

a series produced by

WestEd on the topic of

formative assessment.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

2/20

WestEd >>

2

a balanced and coherent assess-

ment systema component that

has been somewhat eclipsed by the

ocus on assessment or account-ability purposes. The paper rst

describes ormative assessment

and its key eatures. It then turns

to learning theory and measure-

ment theory and their implica-

tions or eective use o ormative

assessment. Subsequent to that,

and prior to the conclusion, is

a brie review o summaries o

research on how ormative assess-

ment aects student learning.

Features of Formative

Assessment in

Classroom Instruction

Black and Wiliam (1998a) char-

acterize ormative assessment as

all those activities undertaken by

teachers and/or by their students

[that] provide inormation to be

used as eedback to modiy the

teaching and learning activitiesin which they are engaged (p. 7).

The goal o any modifcations

to instruction is enhanced stu-

dent learning. It is oten claimed

that the practice o ormative

assessment is rooted in Blooms

concept o mastery learning,

an instructional approach that

espouses the use o assessments

to gauge students progress

toward mastering a learning goal

(Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus,1971). Bloom suggested that,

rather than waiting to assess stu-

dents at the end o a unit (common

practice at the time), teachers use

assessments as an integral part

o the instructional process to

identiy individual learning di-

fculties and prescribe remedia-

tion procedures (Guskey, 2010,

p. 108). According to Guskey,

Bloom borrowed the term or-

mative rom Scriven (1967), whoused it to describe program evalu-

ation activities conducted during

the course o a program to give

eedback on the programs prog-

ress so that it could be improved

i need be.

Formative assessment does not

take the orm o a particular

instrument or task (Moss, 2008),

but is defned by its purpose

(Shepard, 2009), which is to helporm, or shape, a students learn-

ing during the learning process.

Some suggest that ormative

assessment is better described as

a process (using assessment or-

matively [Frohbeiter, Greenwald,

Stecher, & Schwartz, 2011, p. 3])

than as a type o assessment (see

also McManus, 2008). Erickson

(2007) has used the term proxi-

mal ormative assessment to

indicate that it is an activity closeto instruction (Ruiz-Primo, Shav-

elson, Hamilton, & Klein, 2002).

Erickson (2007) defnes it as

the continual taking stock that

teachers do by paying frsthand

observational attention to stu-

dents during the ongoing course

o instructioncareul attention

ocused upon specifc aspects

o a students developing under-

standing (p. 187) in order to

make decisions about next stepsin instruction (see also Heritage,

Kim, Vendlinski, & Herman,

2009). To acilitate this process,

the teacher needs to use practices

that will reveal not only whether

a student appears to have mas-

tered a concept but also how he

or she understands it (Pryor &

Crossouard, 2005). The assess-

ment practices need to be so well

grounded in the instructional

process that the inormationthey reveal will identiy whether

and how instruction should be

adapted to advance students

understandings. Heritage, who

has made signifcant contribu-

tions to the theory and practice

o ormative assessment, empha-

sizes the close linkagei not

the inseparabilityo ormative

assessment, teaching, and learn-

ing (Heritage, 2010a).

In theory, any assessmentinclud-

ing a commercially developed

testcould be used or ormative

purposes. However, as Pellegrino

et al. (2001) caution, using the

same assessments or dierent

purposes tends to lessen their

eectiveness or each purpose (see

also Shavelson, Black, Wiliam,

& Coey, 2007). For example, it

would be dicult to design an

assessment or school account-ability systems that elicits student

perormance at the level necessary

or ne-grained understanding o

individual learning needs without

compromising the scope neces-

sary or an accountability measure

or without making excessive time

Formative assessment is

defned by its purpose

which is to help orm,

or shape, a students

learning during the

learning process.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

3/20


demands or administration and

scoring. Such accountability

assessments are generally not cou-

pled closely enough to instruction

to instruction to yield inormationthat would help a teacher think

about what a student might need

in order to better learn what has

been assessed.

To serve a ormative purpose,

assessment needs to provide action-

able inormation or teachers and

students (Heritage, 2010a; Shepard,

2005). Ideally, it reveals something

about a students progress toward

certain learning goals, the stu-

dents thought processes, and any

misconceptions the student may

hold (Supovitz, 2012). Formative

assessment is highly contingent

on the instructional situation and

the student(s) (Black & Wiliam,

2009, p. 12). Thus, it should be

tailored to the particular students

being assessed, the relevant learn-

ing targets, and a specied point

in the instructional process; also,

it should take a orm most likely to

elicit the desired learning evidence

(Ruiz-Primo & Li, 2011). There

can be no prescription or what a

single instance o ormative assess-

ment should look like. Any instruc-

tional activity that allows teachers

to uncover the way students think

about what is being taught and that

can be used to promote improve-

ments in students learning can

serve a ormative purpose.

Formative assessment is otenhighly integrated with instruc-

tion (Herman et al., 2006) and

most commonly takes the orm

o classroom exchanges between

teachers and students (or, less

commonly, between students).

These exchanges have the potential

to make students thinking explicit

and thus open to examination and

revision. In this way, the exchanges

serve as learning opportunities

(Ruiz-Primo, 2011). Given insightsinto students thinking, a teacher

is in a position to counter mis-

conceptions and steer learning

back on track through eedback

or instructional modications

(Black & Wiliam, 2004). Teachers

can also mentor students to

become procient at asking their

own questions o each other and

responding with ideas, reasoning,

and evidence, as well as providing

eedback to each other (Black &Wiliam, 1998b). Some have called

eedback the linchpin that links

the components o the ormative

assessment process (Brookhart,

Moss, & Long, 2010, p. 41).

Feedback is inormation pro-

vided by an agent (e.g., teacher,

peer, parent, the assessment

itsel) regarding aspects o ones

perormance or understanding

(Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81).Feedback takes on a ormative

role when it provides inormation

about the gap between a students

current understanding and the

desired level o understanding,

and it is most eective or the stu-

dent when it is targeted at the right

developmental level and helps the

student identiy ways to close the

gap (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;

Sadler, 1989). Feedback helps stu-

dents clariy the goals o learning,their progress toward such goals,

and what they need to do to reach

the goals (Hattie & Timperley,

2007). The challenge or a teacher

is to gain insight into students way

o thinking about the subject mat-

ter at hand and to rame eedback

that helps them move toward

specic learning goals (Black &

Wiliam, 2009).

The topic o eedback is large and

complex, with a lengthy research

history; yet much remains to be

done to clariy just how to meet

the challenge that Black and

Wiliam (2009) identiy. Research

in classrooms (not laboratory set-

tings) documenting how eedback

is used and with what impact over

time is particularly needed (Ruiz-

Primo & Li, 2013).

Heritage and Heritage (2011)

reer to teacher questioning as

the epicenter o instruction andassessment (title). Teachers ques-

tioning during instruction may be

inormal and spontaneous or may

be ormal and planned prior to

the lesson (Shavelson et al., 2008).

A teachers inormal questions to

students during class may be or

There can be no

prescription or what

a single instance o

ormative assessment

should look like. Any

instructional activity that

allows teachers to uncover

the way students think

about what is being taught

and that can be used to

promote improvements

in students learning can

serve a ormative purpose.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

4/20

WestEd >>

4

the purpose o checking certain

students learning, or or probing

more deeply to gather evidence

that will yield better understand-

ing o their thinking. At the other

end o the spectrum o ormative

assessment are more ormal pro-

cedures, such as specic prompts

that require a written response

and that are embedded in instruc-

tion at key points to help identiy

the next steps needed to advancestudent learning (Furtak et al.,

2008). These embedded tasks may

be so integrated with instruction

as to seem natural and unobtru-

sive, or they may be given to stu-

dents at the end o a lesson, as a

separate activity, such as when

students make entries in their sci-

ence notebooks or the teacher to

examine later.

Formative assessments can be

described along a number o

dierent dimensions. Some o

the most salient dimensions are

listed in Exhibit 1 above. While

ormative assessments may vary

on a number o dimensions, the

crucial eature is that evidence is

evoked, interpreted in terms olearning needs, and used to make

adjustments [to instruction] to

better meet those learning needs

(Wiliam, 2006, p. 3).

As noted earlier, because orma-

tive assessment is so tightly linked

to instruction, there is a concep-

tual question as to whether or-

mative assessment is more like

instruction or more like assess-

ment, as traditionally conceived.Some writers (e.g., Heritage

2010a) situate ormative assess-

ment within a paradigm o learn-

ing and instruction; others (e.g.,

Phelan et al., 2009) have placed it

squarely within a measurement

paradigm. The ollowing sections

examine ormative assessment

within each paradigm because

both contain concepts that are

helpul to understanding eective

use o ormative assessment.

Formative Assessment

Within a Theory of

Learning and Instruction

Formative assessment is not

necessarily associated with any

particular theory o learning

(Wiliam, 2010). However, current

conceptualizations o ormative

assessment are typically rooted

in a sociocultural constructivist

view o learning (Heritage, 2010a;

Pellegrino et al., 2001; Shepard,

2000). This theory o learning is

supported by research (Pellegrino

et al., 2001), is most compatible

with current goals o education,

and best explains the processes

o eective ormative assessment

(Heritage, 2010b; Pellegrino et al.,

2001; Shepard, 2000).

From a sociocultural constructiv-

ist perspective, learners are seen

as actively constructing knowl-

edge and understanding through

cognitive processes (Piaget, 1954)

within a social and cultural con-

text (Greenfeld, 2009; Rogo,

Exhibit 1. Some Dimensions on Which Formative Assessment

May Vary

1. Inormal vs. ormal

2. Immediate eedback vs. delayed eedback

3. Curriculum embedded vs. stand-alone

4. Spontaneous vs. planned

5. Individual vs. group

6. Verbal vs. nonverbal

7. Oral vs. written

8. Graded/scored vs. ungraded/unscored

9. Open-ended response vs. closed/constrained response

10. Teacher initiated/controlled vs. student initiated/controlled

11. Teacher and student(s) vs. peers

12. Process oriented vs. task/product oriented

13. Brie vs. extended

14. Scafolded (teacher supported) vs. independently perormed

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

5/20


1998, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978);

as building new knowledge on

what they already know (i.e.,

prior knowledge) (Bransord,

Brown, & Cocking, 2000); andas developing the metacognitive

skills necessary to regulate their

own learning (Bransord et al.,

2000; Bruner, 1985; Vygotsky,

1978). These understandings

about learning and development

have implications or the use o

ormative assessment in class-

room instruction.

The work o Vygotsky (1962, 1978)

orms much o the basis or cur-

rent conceptualizations o the

sociocultural aspects o construc-

tivist learning theory and has been

widely applied to models o orma-

tive assessment. Students are seen

to develop knowledge and under-

standing in a domain over time,

not only as individuals but in an

interactive social context, guided

by others with greater expertise

(e.g., teacher, parent, peer) (Tharp

& Gallimore, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978;

Wenger, 1998). One assumption o

sociocultural theory is that learn-

ing is enhanced by what Vygotsky

reerred to as joint productive

activity within a social setting,

such as in a classroom where stu-

dents and teachers collaborate as

a community o learners (Ash &

Levitt, 2003; Koschmann, 1999).

The zone o proximal develop-

ment (ZPD), a concept taken rom

Vygotsky (1978), has been invokedby ormative assessment theorists

as useul or understanding the

gap between a students actual

understanding and the students

targeted or potential learning.

The ZPD is the developmental

space between the level at which

a student can handle a problem

or complete a task independently

and the level at which the stu-

dent can handle or complete the

same task with assistance rom amore competent other, such as a

teacher. Work within the ZPD is

a particular example o joint pro-

ductive activity, that is, teacher

and student are working jointly to

ensure that the student reaches a

learning goal (Ash & Levitt, 2003).

In teaching, the teacher serves as a

mediator between the student and

the learning goal, providing sca-

olding (i.e., learning support) to

aid attainment o the goal (Black& Wiliam, 2009; Walqui & van

Lier, 2010). Formative assessment

is part o this processwhether

implicitly or explicitlyas the

teacher uses inormation about

how a student responds to instruc-

tion in order to give eedback to

the student and/or adjust instruc-

tion so as to prompt learning

or perormance. In this case,

ormative assessment is almost

indistinguishable rom instruc-tion, as the teacher introduces

content; assesses how the student

is responding; oers supports

or understanding and modies

instruction as needed; re-assesses

how the students learning is pro-

gressing; continues with new con-

tent or returns in a new way to the

same content, and so orth.

The Roles of Teachers and

Students in FormativeAssessment

The kind o classroom evoked

by the sociocultural construc-

tivist theory o learning is one

in which teachers and students

share responsibility or learning

(Heritage, 2010a; Tunstall & Gipps,

1996). In this classroom, one would

see teacher and students working

together as part o an interactive

community o learners, in rolesthat may be new to some (Brown

& Campione, 1994; Rogo, 1994),

including engaging in ormative

assessment. Formative assess-

ment calls upon teachers not only

to determine whether students

have learned something, but also

to probe students ways o think-

ing to get at why any learning

gaps exist. In addition to using

assessment evidence to plan uture

instruction, teachers are expectedto use it to help students (1) judge

the state o their own knowledge

and understanding, (2) identiy

the demands o a learning task,

(3) judge their own work against a

standard, (4) grasp and set learn-

ing goals, and (5) select and engage

in appropriate strategies to keep

their learning moving orward

(Andrade, 2010; Black & Wiliam,

1998b, 2009; Bransord et al.,

2000; Heritage, 2010b; Stiggins,Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis,

2009). These metacognitive skills

are critical to the development o

intentional learning and o inde-

pendent, sel-propelled learners

who can regulate their own learn-

ing and sel-correct as needed

(Bransord et al., 2000).

Students are expected to be active

agents in their own learning by

engaging, in increasingly inde-pendent ways, in the previously

enumerated skil ls (Clark, 2012). As

Black and Wiliam (2009) observe,

[S]ince the responsibility or

learning rests with both the teacher

and the learner, it is incumbent

on each to do all they can to

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

6/20

WestEd >>

6

mitigate the impact o any ailures

o the other (p. 7). International

studies on the impact o ormative

assessment practices show that

such practices can indeed support

students ability to take responsi-

bility or and regulate their own

learning, but that this occurs

only when students understand

that assessment can serve pur-

poses other than summative pur-

poses (Organization or Economic

Co-operation and Development,

2005). Perrenoud (1991) notes

that ormative assessment places

demands on students to take amore serious approach to learn-

ing and to work harderdemands

they may not happily embrace;

however, when they do, they may

be their own best sources o eed-

back about their own learning.

Student sel-assessment does con-

tribute to higher student achieve-

ment, and it is most likely to do

so when students are trained in

using sets o perormance criteria,

such as rubrics, to evaluate theirwork or when they receive other

direct instruction on sel-assess-

ment (Ross, 2006). While the

sel-assessments o students may

not always be in sync with their

teachers assessments o them, dis-

crepancies can orm the basis o

productive conversations about

student learning needs (Ross,

2006, p. 9).

Some orms o ormative assess-ment require students not only

to be active agents in their own

learning but also to be, at times,

acilitators o each others learn-

ing through a process o peer

assessment. Peer assessment has

students serving as instructional

resources to each other in much

the way that collaborative learn-

ing does (Black & Wiliam, 2009).

Students eedback to each other

during peer assessment is another

source o inormation about their

level o understanding (Black &

Wiliam, 2009). For students to

adopt such roles requires that

they have a clear understanding o

learning goals and perormance

criteria. Some suggest having

teachers and students jointly con-

struct assessment criteria in order

to increase the reliability o peer

assessment (Topping, 2010) or

having teachers model the pro-

cess or students in order to acili-

tate their participation (Black &

Wiliam, 2009, p. 25).

The Role of Learning

Progressions in


A learning progression is a kind

o developmental model (Harris,

Bauer, & Redman, 2008) that

describes the trajectory o learn-

ing in a domain over an extendedperiod o timemonths to years

(Heritage, 2008, p. 3). Learning

progressions, also known as learn-

ing trajectories (Sztajn, Conrey,

Wilson, & Edgington, 2012) and

progress maps (Hess, 2010), have

been dened as descriptions o

successively more sophisticated

ways o thinking about an idea

that ollow one another as students

learn: [The descriptions] lay out in

words and examples what it meansto move toward more expert under-

standing (Wilson & Bertenthal,

2006, p. 3). Learning progressions

help teachers decide where to take

instruction next, based on what

they have observed students being

able to do independently and with

support (i.e., within the ZPD).

Learning progressions are

intended to help teachers organize

the curricular topics associated

with standards. In some cases,

learning progressions can be con-

structed logically, with reerence

to what experts in a domain per-

ceive as a necessary sequence. For

example, in a mathematics curric-

ulum, addition logically precedes

multiplication because multipli-

cation is repeated addition and

because a child is unlikely to have

avoided learning addition beore

being able to understand multipli-

cation (Leahy & Wiliam, 2011). In

other cases, the logical progres-

sion may not capture a learners

likely developmental path. In addi-

tion, learning progressions may

vary to some degree rom student

to student and rom country to

country. For these reasons, there

is no substitute or empirical vali-

dation o a learning progression.

Learning progressions or trajecto-

ries can help teachers to anticipateand identiy common miscon-

ceptions students may have and,

thus, to shape eedbackwhich,

in turn, reshapes learning (Sztajn

et al., 2012). Sztajn et al. write o

learning trajectory based instruc-

tion as a promising approach

Formative assessment

places demands on

students to take a

more serious approach

to learning and to

work harder.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

7/20


that brings teaching and learning

theory together in a way not pre-

viously done: Overall, we contend

that, despite disciplines, when

teachers organize teaching aroundlearning rom [a learning trajec-

tory] perspective, the trajectory

serves as the uniying element or

their instruction (p. 152).

Very ew learning progressions

have been empirically validated,

so almost any available one

needs to be viewed as a tenta-

tive heuristica way o helping

teachers think about learning

development in a given domain

as opposed to a map that is

aithul to the terrain. Heritage

(2008) summarizes seven sample

learning progressions in math-

ematics, history, science, and

oral language, as well as a tool

that teachers can use to develop

their own progressions in science

("Conceptual Flows" [DiRanna

et al., 2008]). It is not clear, rom

her review, whether some or all o

the progressions have been empir-

ically validated or are based on

logical progressions as identifed

by domain experts. Sztajn et al.

(2012) reer to several dierent

eorts to develop dozens o learn-

ing progressions related to dier-

ent subdomains o mathematics.

Learning progression research

is complex and time-consuming,

and generalizing on the basis o

such research is somewhat risky

because o dierences in context.Recently, researchers validated

a learning progression or linear

measurement in grades 2 and 3

(Barrett et al., 2012). They cau-

tion, however, that this learning

progression is preliminary, hav-

ing been tested with only eight

students. There is currently no

standard way o approaching the

raming o learning progressions.

Sztajn et al. (2012) note that the

progressions resulting rom theseeorts varied in span, grain size,

use o misconceptions, and level o

detail (p. 148).

Research shows that cognitive

development in a domain does not

necessarily ollow a linear path

(Harris et al., 2008; Shavelson

& Kurpius, 2012; Steedle &

Shavelson, 2009). Moreover,

[p]rogressions are not develop-

mentally inevitable but depen-

dent on instruction interacting

with students prior knowledge

and new-knowledge construction

(Shavelson & Kurpius, 2012, p. 15).

Whereas there is not likely to be

a single progression or any com-

plex learning goal, many believe

that educators will be able to iden-

tiy paths that are consistent with

the ways that many students learn

(Mosher, 2011). These common

paths can be annotated by teach-

ers as they observe dierences in

students; this is a necessary step

to providing dierentiated eed-

back and instruction or learners

who veer rom the common path.

Much research remains to be

done on learning progressions.

Researchers at the Center or

Policy Research in Education

conclude, I this work is pur-

sued vigorously and rigorously,

the end result should be a solidbody o evidence about what most

students are capable o achiev-

ing in school and about the par-

ticular sequence(s) o learning

experiences that would lead to

prociency on the part o most

students (Corcoran, Mosher, &

Rogat, 2009, p. 8). Shavelson and

Kurpius (2012) believe that experi-

mental research, as well as action

research by teams o teachers and

researchers, may yield knowl-edge o how to proceed with the

development o deensible learn-

ing progressions.

Even though there are not empiri-

cally validated developmental

sequences or the major concepts

and skills in every academic

domain, the concept o learn-

ing progressions is likely to be

helpul to teachers in conduct-

ing and interpreting ormativeassessments. The hypothesized

progressions may guide teachers

explorations o student learning

through ormative assessment,

their decisions about developmen-

tally appropriate eedback to stu-

dents, and their planning o next

instructional steps.


Within Measurement

Theory

The role o measurement theory

with regard to ormative assess-

ment is somewhat contested; it is

not altogether clear whether and,

i so, how and to what degree

accepted measurement principles

should guide ormative assessment

(Bennett, 2011). This section dis-

cusses ways in which established

thinking about measurement ingeneral may contribute to concep-

tualizing and designing eective

ormative assessment, as well as

ways in which traditional practices

based on principles o measure-

ment theory may not be applicable

to ormative assessment. The

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

8/20

WestEd >>

8

section concludes with a discussion

o why language and culture should

be considered when planning and

implementing ormative assess-

ment, so as not to bias results.

As in other orms o assessment,

the primary activity or the per-

son using ormative assessment

results is to reason rom evi-

denceto make an inerence

about what a student knows and

can do, based on assessment inor-

mation that is not perect and may

be, to some degree, incomplete

or imprecise (Pellegrino et al.,

2001). Measurement theory iden-

ties desired qualities o the iner-ences made rom assessments:

reliability, validity, and airness.

Reliability has to do with the con-

sistency o the assessment inor-

mationor example, whether

replication o an assessment at

dierent times or in dierent

settings would result in the same

judgment about the student

(Haertel, 2006). Validity has to

do with the extent to which the

interpretation o a students per-ormance and the actions based

on it are appropriate and justied

(Messick, 1989). Are the decisions

made on the basis o students per-

ormance suitable and accurate?

Fairness requires that validity

does not change rom one student

group to another (Pellegrino et al.,

2001). For example, are the inter-

pretations o student perormance

as appropriate or students who

are English learners as they areor students who are native speak-

ers o English?

Measurement theory also provides

statistical methods to assess the

qualities o inerences. In large-

scale assessments o achieve-

mentsuch as statewide testing or

school accountabilityreliability,

validity, and airness are examined

in statistical studies that are based

on measurement models about theactors that infuence student per-

ormance on tests. These statisti-

cal methods would not be helpul

in ormative assessment conducted

in classrooms, or a couple o rea-

sons. First, they require peror-

mance inormation rom a large

number o students, on a large

number o tasks, possibly rom

multiple occasions. In classrooms,

a teacher might use a particular

assessment technique simply toevaluate a ew students in a brie

segment o a class discussion.

Second, the statistical analyses

generally are built on theories o

test interpretation that summarize

the quantity, rather than the quali-

ties, o student knowledge. Thus,

the interpretations would ocus

on whether a students test peror-

mance indicated that the student

had acquired an adequate level o

knowledge, rather than ocusingon the nature o the students rea-

soning or the patterns o thinking

displayed by the student. It is this

last type o inormation that gener-

ally is useul to teachers in under-

standing what students know and

what they still need to learn.

Exploration o the qualities o

inerences derived rom orma-

tive assessment is in its inancy.

Still to be investigated are suchissues as how the types o strat-

egies that teachers use in orma-

tive assessment aect the quality

o evidence elicited rom students,

whether the strategies are inter-

changeable with regard to the

instructional decisions to which

they lead, and whether the strate-

gies dier in eectiveness or di-

erent students (Brookhart, 2003,

2005; Shepard, 2009).

There are good reasons to believe

that concerns or reliability, valid-

ity, and airness are mitigated

by the nature o how ormative

assessment is carried out. With

ormative assessments, teachers

can evaluate students requently

via dierent strategies that can

be tailored to the particular stu-

dents (Durn, 2011). In orma-

tive assessment, Shavelson et al.

(2007) argue, issues o reliability

and validity are addressed overtime, as teachers collect ongoing

data about student perormance

and, as appropriate, make correc-

tions to their previous inerences.

Teachers are in an ideal position

to adjust their methods to probe

inormation that will resolve any

As in other forms

of assessment, the

primary activity for the

person using formative

assessment results is to

reason from evidenceto

make an inference about

what a student knows

and can do, based on

assessment information

that is not perfect and

may be, to some degree,

incomplete or imprecise.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

9/20


discrepancies or to test compet-

ing hypotheses as to why students

respond the ways they do.

Useful Principles of AssessmentDesign

An understanding o undamental

principles o assessment design

can be useul to teachers in their

eorts to obtain high-quality

inormation rom students. One

useul heuristic is an assessment

triangle that shows the three ele-

ments present in any type o

assessment: a model of student

cognition, which describes how

students develop competence in

an academic domain and how

they organize their knowledge at

dierent levels o development;

observations, which are the tasks

or activities in which students per-

ormance can be observed, scored,

and evaluated or the purpose o

gathering evidence o learning;

and interpretation, which is the

rationale or making sense o and

deriving inerences rom the evi-

dence gathered (Pellegrino et al.,

2001, pp. 4451). Whether or not

they are made explicit, these ele-

ments are equally present in any

instance o assessment, includ-

ing ormative assessment, and

the quality o inerences derived

rom the assessment will depend

on how well these three elements

have been linked (Pellegrino

et al., 2001). In ormative assess-

ment, a ourth element needs to

be present: eective translation o

the interpretation o assessment

perormance to instructional

decisions and actions.

One approach to assessment devel-

opment that makes explicit, and

links, the three elements o the

assessment triangle is Evidence

Centered Design (ECD) (Mislevy,

Steinberg, & Almond, 2003; Zhang

et al., 2010). ECD provides a

ramework or building valid andair assessments. In this process,

assessment developers identiy

the nature o the evidence that is

needed to make a judgment about

specied aspects o student learn-

ing; then, they examine any pro-

posed assessment task to ensure

that it does not preclude or reduce

the opportunity or any student to

participate in the task and show

certain knowledge, skills, and

abilities (KSAs). Sometimes anassessment task, including a or-

mative assessment, may call on

additional, unwanted (non-target)

KSAs, and the task may end up

eliciting evidence not only o the

target KSAs but also o language

skill or some other skil l not related

to the concepts ostensibly being

assessed. In such a case, lack o

prociency with non-target KSAs

can prevent the student rom dem-

onstrating prociency with theactual targets o the assessment,

limiting the assessments airness

and the validity o interpreta-

tions derived rom it. An example

would be a task designed to evalu-

ate students understanding o a

mathematical concept by having

students solve a problem that is

couched in many pages o text.

Perormance on the task would

be infuenced not only by the tar-

get KSAthat is, knowledge othe mathematical conceptbut

also by the non-target KSAthat

is, ability to read extended text.

The ollowing series o questions

(based in part on Harris et al.,

2008) are useul when developing

ormative assessment activities in

general, but can also help teachers

develop assessment processes and

tools that minimize the intrusion

o unwanted KSAs and increase

the likelihood o making validinerences about student learning:

What KSA(s) do I wish to assess

(e.g., knowledge, skills, pro-

cesses, understanding toward

competency in a particular part

o a domain)?

What is the cognitive/develop-

mental path (i.e., learning tra-

jectory) I would expect to see

with regard to these KSAs?

What evidence (i.e., observable

eatures o students peror-

mances and responses) would I

need in order to determine the

students level o KSAs?

What are the characteristics

o tasks that will elicit this

evidence?

What KSAs that are not wanted

(e.g., unnecessarily complex

language, need or speed o

response) might this type o

ormative assessment process

introduce?

How can I modiy my orma-

tive assessment process to make

it inclusive or all students, to

minimize the impact o non-

target KSAs?

Non-target KSAs are most com-

monly introduced unwittingly byunnecessarily complex language

and/or by content or processes

unamiliar to students rom par-

ticular cultural backgrounds. The

ollowing section shows how this

can happen and oer suggestions

or avoiding such problems.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

10/20

WestEd >>

0

Language and Culture in


Language is the principal medium

or teaching and learning (Bailey,Burkett, & Freeman, 2008), or

mentally representing and think-

ing through problems (Durn,

1985; Lager, 2006), and or gain-

ing an understanding o how

other people think (Bronkart,

1995). As Bailey et al. (2008) write,

Classrooms are rst and oremost,

language environments (p. 608).

However, teachers are generally

not educated to think linguisti-

cally (Bailey et al., 2008), to seehow language is an integral ele-

ment in all teaching and learning.

Hence, language is oten a kind o

silent partner in instruction and

assessment. This is unortunate

because good teaching depends

on a teachers considerable knowl-

edge o language development and

the use o language in learning

a grounding in the undamentals

o educational linguistics (Wong

Fillmore & Snow, 2000).

Students responses to orma-

tive assessments, which teachers

expect to interpret as evidence o

students content knowledge or

skill, may be aected by students

relative amiliarity with the orms

and uses o language in the assess-

ment tasks. For example, a student

may not understand the grammar

(orm) o a question or may lack

the skills to mount an evidence-

based argument (one use o lan-guage) to respond to the question

adequately. The language orms

and uses ound in students class-

rooms, in both instruction and

assessment tasks, may be more

amiliar or less amiliar to stu-

dents, depending on the dialects

o English spoken at home, the

purposes or which their parents

use language, the infuence o

another language or culture, their

prior knowledge and past experi-ence (related to opportunities to

learn), their socioeconomic status,

and a host o other actors (Heath,

1983; Ochs & Schieelin, 2011;

Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003).

When educators consider the role

o language in assessment, the

needs o students who are English

language learners may come

quickly to mind. These students

are learning a new language at

the same time they are learning

content in that language, learning

the specialized discourse o the

dierent subject-matter domains,

and learning how to use language

as a tool or learning and or dem-

onstrating their learning (Abedi,

2010, 2011; Bailey et al., 2008; Lee,

Santau, & Maerten-Rivera, 2011;

Trumbull & Solano-Flores, 2011).

With these issues in mind, teach-

ers will want to evaluate their

ormative assessment practices

with a view to reducing language

demands, providing choices in the

ways they expect students to dem-

onstrate understanding o a con-

cept, and rewording the language

o an assessment when apparently

needed. They can also ask students

directly about how they, the stu-

dents, interpret assessment ques-

tions or tasks (Basterra, 2011; Lee

et al., 2011; Spinelli, 2008). A stu-

dents diculty in interpreting the

meaning o an assessment question

is itsel a clue to the presence o one

or more non-target KSAs.

Formative assessment activities

can be designed to be credible

sources o learning evidence with

students who are English lan-

guage learners (Kopriva & Sexton,

2011). However, having good inor-

mation about a students level

o English prociency is criticalto planning appropriate orma-

tive assessment processes. Abedi

(2010) and others recommend that

teachers use the ormative process

itsel to gather and make note o

inormation about students levels

o English knowledge on a contin-

uous basis. A teacher is in a better

position than an outside specialist

to observe language use in a range

o circumstances and to make

judgments about a students abil-ity to use language as a medium o

learning and assessment.

In written assessments, it is advis-

able to avoid high-level vocabulary

not related to the learning goal

being assessed, eliminate com-

plex syntax, and avoid the passive

voice (Abedi, 2006)or any stu-

dent, not just or English language

learners. (See Trumbull & Solano-

Flores [2011] or a list o linguistic

eatures to avoid, with explanatory

examples.) Unnecessary language

complexity is probably the great-

est source o non-target KSAs or

a great many students (Trumbull

& Solano-Flores, 2011). In spoken

language, there are opportunities

or a teacher to clariy language,

and he or she may want to model

language that is slightly beyond a

students level so as to encourage

language growth (by working in

the ZPD).

Students who are poor readers or

have a developmental language

problem, but who (given appro-

priate supports) have the intellec-

tual capacity to learn the taught

curriculum, are also penalized

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

11/20


by instructional and assessment

uses o language that do not take

their needs into account (Fuchs

et al., 2007; Lerner, 2000; Troia,

2011). A more complex challengein ormative assessment emerges

or students who have a language-

based learning disability and

are also English language learn-

ers (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006;

Hoover & Klingner, 2011). Experts

in the education o these students

see value in ormative assessment

processes precisely because such

assessment is tailored to the stu-

dents contexts and can be used

on a continuing basis to moni-tor student progress (National

Joint Committee on Learning

Disabilities, 2010; Hoover &

Klingner, 2011). Should a student

need a higher level o interven-

tion, the teacher will have impor-

tant evidence about the student's

needs, rom ormative assess-

ment, which he or she can share

with specialists evaluating the

student and with parents.

Cultural dierences in students

orientation to language use, as

well as their orientation to assess-

ment, must be considered i or-

mative assessment is to be valid

and air. Any use o language in

the education process has cul-

tural underpinningsthat is,

culture-based assumptions about

what is appropriate or accept-

able (Trumbull & Solano-Flores,

2011). All students ace the task olearning how classroom discourse

and the discourses o dierent

subject-matter domains work. But,

based on their home language and/

or culture, some students may

less prepared or this task than

others, because they may not be

oriented to the dominant cultures

ways o using language, which are

refected in the classroom (Heath,

1983; Schleppegrell, 2004). These

kinds o dierences have implica-tions or ormative assessment. For

example, in some amilies, parents

may routinely talk with their chil-

dren about how they are progress-

ing in learning a particular skill or

what they may be able to do next

(Moss, 2008). In other amilies,

such conversations are not com-

mon, and, when asked to engage in

an evaluative conversation about

learning, their children may need

more teacher modeling and moretime to develop comort and skill

with this process. Explaining the

schools expectations to parents

while, at the same time, respecting

parents dierences in expectations

or children may be an important

step or teachers to take. I parents

believe that children learn best

by listening and showing respect

or the teacher, they may discour-

age the very behaviors that teach-

ers are trying to elicit (Greeneld,Quiroz, & Rae, 2000). It is not

surprising that cultural orienta-

tion has been shown to aect stu-

dents ways o approaching tests

or test items (Demmert, 2005;

Li, Solano-Flores, Kwon, & Tsai,

2008; Swisher & Deyhle, 1992). In

act, the expectations or how to

communicate during assessment,

whether ormal or inormal, con-

stitute what is, in eect, a cultural

script (Emihovich, 1994).

Students cultural backgrounds

infuence their belies about

social roles in the classroom,

the purpose o schooling, how

to use language in the learning

process (Bransord et al., 2000;

Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995;

Greeneld, Suzuki, & Rothstein-

Fisch, 2006; Greeneld, Trumbull

et al., 2006), and how and when to

demonstrate ones knowledge and

understandingan area entirely

germane to ormative assess-

ment (Nelson-Barber & Trumbull,

2007). For example, when asked

to name birds that live in a par-

ticular habitat, children rom

some cultural backgrounds may

respond with stories o amily

outings that include sightings o

birds, rather than the expected

scientic discourse that ocuses on

observations or acts about birds,

abstracted rom experience or

instruction (Trumbull, Diaz-Meza,

& Hasan, 1999). This is because,

in these students homes, social

and cognitive learning are seen as

integrated, not separable. In sucha case, i the teacher responds by

discouraging personal stories, he

or she may suppress students par-

ticipation in discussion. Instead,

the teacher can demonstrate to

students how to extract rom their

experiences what they have

In formative assessment,

issues of reliability and

validity are addressed

over time, as teachers

collect ongoing

data about student

performance and, as

appropriate, make

corrections to their

previous inferences.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

12/20

WestEd >>

2

learned about birds and record it

on the board or in their journals

(Trumbull et al., 1999).

Inormal questioning, the most

common orm o ormative assess-

ment, may not always be the best

way to assess students who are

still learning English or who are

rom communities where English

is used in ways dierent rom

those expected in the classroom.

Such students may misconstrue

the intent o a teachers question,

may thus respond dierently than

expected, and may then be mis-

judged about their understand-

ing (Trumbull & Solano-Flores,

2011). A young student still learn-

ing the protocol o the classroom

may think, I the teacher already

knows the answer to the question,

why is she asking it? Is this a trick?

Students rom many cultural

backgrounds (e.g., Asian, Latino,

Native American cultures) may

avoid answering direct questions

in a group o peers because being

singled out in ront o others is

not common in their cultures andmay cause discomort or conu-

sion (Greeneld & Cocking, 1994).

Among Native American groups, a

right/wrong approach to knowl-

edge is not culturally congruent:

Many such students have been

socialized to consider all sides to

a question and to avoid dichoto-

mous (e.g., right/wrong) thinking.

Historically, in ederal boarding

schools and (more recently) in class-

rooms using scripted basic skillsprograms, Native American stu-

dents have suered through direct

questioning approaches, oten

responding with silence rather

than participating in the question/

answer ritual (McCarty, 2002). A

recent study showed that teachers

oral questioning during discus-

sions was negatively associated

with Native American and Alaska

Native students later mathemat-

ics perormance (Huang, Nelson-Barber, Trumbull, & Sexton, 2011).

Likewise, an inquiry approach that

requires students to reason aloud,

on demand, about a question may

be particularly uncomortable

or Native American and Alaska

Native students who have learned

at home to observe and mentally

rehearse any complex task beore

attempting public perormance

(Swisher & Deyhle, 1995). Teachers

not privy to the communicationnorms in some communities may

at times be introducing non-target

KSAs into assessment by using the

very ormative assessment prac-

tices that are most accepted (e.g.,

questioning students during a

whole group discussion).

Cultural dierences may also be

associated with dierences in

responses to various orms o eed-

back (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;

Kaplan, Karabenick, & De Groot,2009; Maehr & Yamaguchi, 2001;

Otsuka & Smith, 2005; Trumbull

& Rothstein-Fisch, 2011). For

example, some students may

be uncomortable with praise,

particularly i it is given pub-

licly (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;

Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull,

2008); they may be more moti-

vated by negative eedback and

criticism, at least in part because

o a cultural value o working tomeet the expectations o teach-

ers and amily (Heine, Takata, &

Lehman, 2000). Teachers need to

observe how their particular stu-

dents respond to various orms o

eedback in order to tailor eed-

back to those students needs.

Given a basic understanding o

how linguistic and cultural ac-

tors may intersect with orma-

tive assessment processes andtasks, educators can be alert to

sources o non-target KSAs in

order to achieve what has been

called cultural validity in or-

mative assessment (Solano-Flores

& Nelson-Barber, 2001). Cultural

validity is achieved when an

assessment takes into consider-

ation students sociocultural back-

grounds, including their cultural

worldviews, their lie contexts

and values, the kinds o home andschool experiences they have had

(i.e., the oundation o their prior

knowledge), their language preer-

ences and prociency, and their

ways o using language to commu-

nicate and learn. Because orma-

tive assessment has the fexibility

Teachers must make

any act o ormative

assessment contingent

on what has been taught

and on how students

have responded to the

teaching, and they must

shape modications to

instruction in ways that

make sense or students

at diferent developmental

levels within particular

domains o study.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

13/20


to incorporate attention to con-

text, it can more easily address

issues o cultural validity.

Research into the

Effectiveness of


Formative assessment has been

highly touted or its purported

positive impact on student learn-

ing (Black & Wiliam, 1998a;

Organization or Economic Co-op-

eration and Development, 2005).

Black and Wiliam (1998), reviewing

some 681 publications on studies

related to ormative assessment,

concluded that attention to or-

mative assessment can lead to sig-

nicant learning gains (p. 9) and

asserted that there is no evidence

to suggest that it may have negative

eects. However, caution should be

exercised in making an uncritical

endorsement o ormative assess-

ment (Bennett, 2011; Dunn &

Mulvenon, 2009; Kingston & Nash,

2012a; Shepard, 2005). One issue

is that the term ormative assess-

ment itsel has been interpreted

to mean dierent things (Bennett,

2011). For example, it may be used

to describe commercial assess-

ments that are not truly capable

o serving a ormative purpose

because they are not tied closely

enough to the teaching and learn-

ing context (Perie, Marion, Gong,

& Wurtzel, 2007; Popham, 2006;

Shepard, 2010).

Another issue is that the body o

research on which claims o the

positive impact o ormative assess-

ment are based is relatively small,

and many o the relevant studies

do not have the methodological

rigor to support conclusions about

the eectiveness o ormative

assessment. Most claims about the

benets o ormative assessment

begin with the Black and Wiliam

(1998a) review o research on or-

mative assessment. Their review

is oten reerred to as a meta-

analysis, but, as the authors

themselves observe, a true meta-

analysis was not easible or them

because the studies they used rep-

resented such a wide range o prac-

tices and research methods. What

the studies they reviewed had

in common was teachers use o

some o the eatures o ormative

assessment (e.g., eedback, teacher

questioning, student sel-assess-

ment); these eatures were associ-

ated with moderate-to-large eect

sizes. Bennett (2011) suggests that

the characterization o Black and

Wiliams review as a meta-analysis

is educations equivalent o an

urban legend.

A recent meta-analysis o studies

on the impact o ormative assess-

ment on K12 student achieve-

ment concludes that, i only the

studies hewing to rigorous meth-

ods are examined, the eect sizes

o ormative assessment are quite

modest (a mean o .20); however,

the eects are usually positive (o

the 42 eect sizes reported, only

7 were negative), and some posi-

tive eects are greater than others

(Kingston & Nash, 2012a). Thismeta-analysis has been criticized

or the methods it employed, lead-

ing to a debate as to whether the

ndings were limited by the meth-

odology (See Briggs, Ruiz-Primo,

Furtak, Shepard, & Yuen, 2012;

Kingston & Nash, 2012b).

In other summaries, imple-

mentation o particular orma-

tive assessment strategies that

teachers had learned in proes-

sional development sessionsresulted in an average eect size

o .30 (Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, &

Black, 2004), and use o a com-

puter-based ormative assess-

ment system o writing resulted

in an eect size o .28 (Rich,

Harrington, Kim, & West, 2008).

There is some suggestion in the

research literature as to why the

eects o ormative assessment are

not as large as one might expect:

Teachers are unsure what to do in

response to what they learn about

their students rom ormative

assessment. The evidence gath-

ered through ormative assess-

ment should be used to determine

whether instruction needs to be

modied and, i so, how. However,

this part o the ormative assess-

ment cycle oten alters: Teachers

may succeed in gathering evidence

about student learning and may

accurately interpret the evidence

to identiy what knowledge a stu-

dent lacks, yet may not be able to

identiy, target, and carry out spe-

cic instructional steps to close

the learning gaps (Heritage, et al.,

2009; Herman et al., 2006).

Conclusion

Formative assessment is not new.

Though they may not have calledit by that name, eective teach-

ers have always probed, in the

course o their instruction, to

understand students thinking

and learning. Through question-

ing and observation, among other

activities, they have strived to

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

14/20

WestEd >>

4

see behind the curtain, to expose

why and how their students might

get stuck or go o track. These

teachers have taken what they

have learned about their studentsand used that knowledge, along

with their knowledge o pedagogy

and the subject o study, to pro-

vide actionable eedback to stu-

dents and to tailor their teaching

to meet students learning needs.

Shavelson (1973) noted that any

teaching act is the result o a deci-

sion that the teacher makes ater

the complex cognitive processing

o available inormation, and he

argued that what distinguishes

the exceptional teacher rom his or

her colleagues is not the ability to

ask, say, a higher-order question,

but the ability to decide when to

ask such a question. (p. 144) That

decision, according to Shavelson,

would incorporate inormation

about students understanding o

course material and how alterna-

tive teaching actions would aect

students understanding.

As educators and researchers have

been examining how teachers use

assessments to inorm instruction,

it has become clear that conduct-

ing ormative assessment is not

only a complex process but one

that requires extensive knowledge,

including knowledge about student

learning, domains o study, assess-

ment, and pedagogy. Teachers

must make any act o ormative

assessment contingent on what hasbeen taught and on how students

have responded to the teaching,

and they must shape modica-

tions to instruction in ways that

make sense or students at dier-

ent developmental levels within

particular domains o study. There

is no prescription or how to tailor

ormative assessment to meet the

needs o a particular classroom or

student, but this tailoring is what

good teaching demands o teach-ers. Thus, the ull burden o imple-

menting ormative assessment

alls on the teacher.

While there are eorts to develop

supports or teachers who want to

use assessments ormatively, there

is much work to be done. Research

into learning progressions

those cognitive models o knowl-

edge development within specic

domainsmay eventually provide

teachers with validated models

that they can use to guide orma-

tive assessment. Proessional devel-

opment and coaching on ormative

assessment may advance teachers

skill in using assessment to provide

eedback to students and to inorm

their own instruction; advances

in technology may help teachers

meet the challenges o tailoring

assessment and instruction to indi-

vidual students. And the growing

demand or balanced assessment

systems presents both a rationale

and an opportunity or the eld to

reocus some o the attention that

is currently given to assessment

onto classrooms and the important

activities o teachers and students

working to promote learning.

References

Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues initem-development. In S. M. Downing

& T. M. Haladyna (Eds.),Handbook

o test development (pp. 377398).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Abedi, J. (2010). Research and

recommendations or ormative

assessment with English language

learners. In H. Andrade & C.

Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of forma-

tive assessment (pp. 181197). New

York: Routledge.

Abedi, J. (2011). Assessing English

language learners. In M. Basterra,

E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores

(Eds.), Cultural validity in assess-

ment: Addressing linguistic and cul-

tural diversity (pp. 4971). New York:

Routledge.

Andrade, H. (2010). Students as

the denitive source o ormative

assessment. In H. Andrade & C.

Cizek (Eds.), Handbook o ormative

assessment (pp. 90105). New York:

Routledge.

Ash, D., & Levitt, K. (2003). Working

within the zone o proximal develop-

ment: Formative assessment as pro-

essional development. Journal o

Science Teacher Education, 14(1),

126.

Bailey, F., Burkett, B., & Freeman,

D. (2008). The mediating role o lan-

guage in teaching and learning: A

classroom perspective. In B. Spolsky

& F. M. Hult (Eds.), Handbook o

educational linguistics (pp. 606

625). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., Clements,

D. H., Cullen, C., McCool, J.,

W i t k o w s k i - R u m s e y , C . , &

Klanderman, D. (2012). Evaluating

and improving a learning tra-

jectory or linear measurement

in elementary grades 2 and 3: A

longitudinal study. Mathematical

Thinking and Learning, 14(1), 2854.

Basterra, M. (2011). Cognition, cul-ture, language, and assessment:

How to select culturally valid assess-

ments in the classroom. In M.

Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-

Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in

assessment: Addressing linguistic and

cultural diversity (pp. 7295). New

York: Routledge.

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

15/20


Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative

assessment: A critical review.

Assessment in Education: Pr inciples,

Policy & Practice, 18(1), 525.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a).

Assessment and classroom learning.


Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 774.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b).

Inside the black box: Raising stan-

dards through classroom assess-

ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2),

139149.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The

ormative purpose: Assessment

must rst promote learning. In M.Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence

between classroom assessment and

accountability. The 103rd yearbook

o the National Society or the Study

o Education, Part II (pp. 2050).

University o Chicago Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009).

Developing the theory o ormative

assessment.Educational Assessment,

Evaluation, and Accountability, 21(1),

531.

Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., &

Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on

ormative and summative evalua-

tion o student learning. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Bransord, J. D., Brown, A. L., &

Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people

learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Briggs, D. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,

Furtak, E., Shepard, L., & Yuen, Y.(2012). Meta-analytic methodology

and inerences about the ecacy o

ormative assessment. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice,

31(4), 1317.

Bronkart, J.-P. (1995). Theories o

action, speech, natural language,

and discourse. In J. V. Wertsch,

P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.),

Sociocultural studies of mind

(pp. 7591). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing

measurement theory or classroom

assessment purposes and uses.

Educational Measurement Issues

and Practices, 22(4), 512.

Brookhart, S. M., (2005, April).

Research on ormative assessment

classroom assessment. Paper pre-

sented at the annual meeting o the

American Educational Research

Association, Montreal, Canada.

Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., &

Long, B. A. (2010). Teacher inquiry

into ormative assessment practices

in remedial reading classrooms.


Policy & Practice, 17(1), 4158.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C.

(1994). Guided discovery in a com-

munity o learners. In K. McGilly

(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating

cognitive theory and classroom prac-

tice (pp. 229270). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Bruner, J. (1985). Actual minds,

possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Clark, I. (2012). Formative assess-

ment: A systematic and artistic

process o instruction or support-

ing school and lielong learning.

Canadian Journal o Education,

35(2), 2440.

Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat,

A. (2009). Learning progressions in

science: An evidence-based approach

to reform (CPRE Research Report

#RR-63). New York: Center on

Continuous Instructional Improve-

ment, Teachers CollegeColumbia

University.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Pecheone,

R. (2010).Developing an internation-

ally comparable balanced assessment

system that supports high-quality

learning. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Services.

Demmert, W. (2005). The infuences

o culture on learning and assess-

ment among Native American stu-

dents,Learning Disabilities Research

& Practice, 20(1), 1623.

DiRanna, K., Osmundson, E.,

Topps, J., Barakos, L., Gearhart, M.,

Cerwin, K., Carnahan, D., & Strang,

C. (2008).Assessment-centered teach-

ing: A refective practice. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. (2009).

A critical review o research on

ormative assessment: The limited

scientic evidence o the impact o

ormative assessment in education.

Practical Assessment, Research and

Evaluation, 14(7). Retrieved rom

http:/ /www.pareonline.net/pd/

v14n7.pd

Durn, R. P. (1985). Infuences o

language skills on bilinguals prob-

lem solving. In S. F. Chipman, J. W.

Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking

and learning skills (pp. 187207).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Durn, R. P. (2011). Ensuring valid

educational assessments or ELL

students. Scores, score interpreta-

tion, and assessment uses. In M.

Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-

Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in

assessment: Addressing linguistic and

cultural diversity (pp. 115142). NewYork: Routledge.

Emihovich, C. (1994). The language

o testing: An ethnographic socio-

linguistic perspective on standard-

ized tests. In K. Holland, D. Bloome,

& J. Solsken (Eds.), Alternative per-

spectives in assessing childrens

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

16/20

WestEd >>

6

language and literacy (pp. 3352).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts

on proximal ormative assess-

ment o student learning. In P. A.

Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision

making. The 106th Yearbook o the

National Society or the Study o

Education, 106(1), 186216. Malden,

MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P.

(2006). The diagnosis o LD in

English language learners: Is it non-

discriminatory?Journal o Learning

Disabilities, 39(3), 206214.

Frohbeiter, G., Greenwald, E.,Stecher, B., & Schwartz, H. (2011).

Knowing and doing: What teachers

learn rom ormative assessment and

how they use inormation. CRESST

Report 802. Los Angeles: UCLA

National Center or Research on

Evaluation, Standards, and Student

Testing.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Compton,

D. L., Bouton, B., Carey, E., &

Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic assessment

as responsiveness to intervention.Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5),

5863.

Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,

Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon,

P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y.

(2008). On the delity o implement-

ing embedded ormative assessments

and its relation to student learning.

Applied Measurement in Education,

21, 360389.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R.

(1995). Immigrant Latino parents

values and belies about their chil-

drens education. Continuities and

discontinuities across cultures and

generations. In P. Pintrich & M.

Maehr (Eds.), Advances in achieve-

ment motivation (pp. 183228).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Greeneld, P. M. (2009). Linking

social change and developmental

change: Shiting pathways o

human development.Developmental

Psychology, 45(2), 401418.

Greeneld, P. M., & Cocking, R. R.

(Eds.). (1994). Cross-cultural roots o

minority child development. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greeneld, P. M., Quiroz, B., &

Rae, C. (2000). Cross-cultural

confict and harmony in the social

construction o the child. In S.

Harkness, C. Rae, & C. M. Super

(Eds.), Variability in the social con-

struction of the child: New directions

for child and adolescent develop-ment, 87, 93108.

Greeneld, P. M., Suzuki, L., &

Rothstein-Fisch, C. (2006). Cultural

pathways in human development. In

W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel &

K. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook

o child psychology (6th ed.), Vol. 4:

Child psychology in practice (pp. 655

699). New York: Wiley.

Greeneld, P. M., Trumbull, E.,

Keller, H., Rothstein-Fisch, C.,

Suzuki, L., Quiroz, B., & Maynard,

A. (2006). Cultural conceptions o

learning and development. In P.

Winne (Ed.), Handbook of educa-

tional psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 675

692). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Guskey, T. R. (2010). Formative

assessment: The contributions o

Benjamin S. Bloom. In H. Andrade

& C. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of for-

mative assessment (pp. 106124).

New York: Routledge.

Haertel, E. H. (2006) Reliability. In

R. L. Brennen (Ed.), Educational

measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 65110).

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Harris, K., Bauer, M., & Redman, M.

(2008). Cognitive based developmental

models used as a link between

ormative and summative assessment.

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing

Service. Retrieved rom http://www.

iaea2008.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/164898_Harris.

pd

Hattie, U., & Timperley, H. (2007).

The power o eedback, Review o

Educational Research, 77(1), 81112.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words:

Language, life, and work in commu-

nities and classrooms. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University

Press.

Heine, S. J., Takata, T., & Lehman, D.R. (2000). Beyond sel-presentation:

Evidence or sel-criticism among

Japanese. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26, 7178.

Heritage, M. (2008). Learning pro-

gressions: Supporting instruction

and ormative assessment. Paper pre-

pared or the Formative Assessment

or Teachers and Students (FAST)

State Collaborative on Assessment

and Student Standards (SCASS) o

the Council o Chie State School

Ocers (CCSSO). Washington, DC:

CCSSO.

Heritage, M. (2010a). Formative

assessment: Making it happen in

the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Heritage, M. (2010b). Formative

assessment and next-generation

assessment systems: Are we losing

an opportunity? Paper prepared

or the Council o Chie State

School Ofcers. Los Angeles: UCLANational Center or Research on


Testing (CRESST).

Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2011,

April). Teacher questioning: The epi-

center o ormative instruction and

assessment. Paper presented at the

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

17/20


annual meeting o the American

Educational Research Association,

New Orleans, LA.

Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T.,& Herman, J. L. (2009). From evi-

dence to action: A seamless process

o ormative assessment?Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice,

28(3), 24-31.

Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key

to next generation assessment suc-

cess (AACC report). Los Angeles, CA:

University o Caliornia.

Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayala,

C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006).

The nature and impact o teachers or-

mative assessment practices. CRESST

Report 703. Los Angeles: UCLA

National Center or Research on


Testing.

Hess, K. (2010, April). Strategies

or helping teachers make better use

o assessment results. Best prac-

tices or state assessment systems.

Workshop II. National Research

Council, Washington, DC.

Hoover, J. J., & Klingner, J. (2011).

Promoting cultural validity in the

assessment o bilingual special

education students. In M. Basterra,




tural diversity (pp. 143167). New

York: Routledge.

Huang, C.-W., Nelson-Barber, S.,

Trumbull, E., & Sexton, U. (2011,

April). Student, teacher, and school

factors associated with NAEP

mathematics test performance by

American Indian and Alaska Native

students. Paper presented at the

annual meeting o the American

Educational Research Association,

New Orleans, LA.

Kaplan, A., Karabenick, S., &

De Groot, E. (2009). Introduction:

Culture, sel, and motivation: The

contribution o Martin L. Maehr to

the elds o achievement motiva-tion and educational psychology. In

A. Kaplan, S. Karabenick, & E. De

Groot (Eds.), Culture, sel, and moti-

vation: Essays in honor o Martin L .

Maehr (pp. viixxi). Charlotte, NC:

Inormation Age Publishing.

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2012a).

Formative assessment: A meta-

analysis and a call or research.

Educational Measurement: Issues

and Practice, 30(4), 2837.

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2012b).

How many ormative angels can

dance on the head o a meta-analytic

pin: .2. Educational Measurement:

Issues and Practice, 31(4), 1819.

Kopriva, R., & Sexton, U. (2011).

Using appropriate assessment pro-

cesses: How to get accurate inorma-

tion about the academic knowledge

and skills o English language learn-

ers. In M. Basterra, E. Trumbull,

& G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural

validity in assessment: Addressinglinguistic and cultural diversity

(pp. 96114). New York: Routledge.

Koschmann, T. (1999, December).

Toward a dialogic theory o

learning: Bakhtins contribution to

understanding learning in settings

o collaboration. In C. Hoadley &

J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings o the

Computer Support or Collaborative

Learning (CSCL) 1999 conerence

(pp. 308313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates. Retrievedrom http://www.gerrystahl.net/

proceedings/cscl1999/A38/A38.HTM

Lager, C. A. (2006). Types o

mathematics-language reading inter-

actions that unnecessarily hinder

algebra learning and assessment.

Reading Psychology, 27(23), 165204.

Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2011, April).

Devising learning progressions. Paper

presented at the annual meeting o

the American Educational Research

Association, New Orleans: LA.

Lee, O., Santau, A., & Maerten-

Rivera, J. (2011). Science and lit-

eracy assessments with English

language learners. In M. Basterra,




tural diversity (pp. 254274). New

York: Routledge.

Lerner, J. W. (2000).Learning disabil-

ities: theories, diagnosis, and teaching

strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifin.

Li, M., Solano-Flores-G., Kwon,

M., & Tsai, S. P. (2008, April). Its

asking me as i I were the mother:

Examining how students rom di-

erent groups interpret test ques-

tions. Paper presented at the annual

meeting o the National Association

or Research in Science Teaching,

Baltimore, MD.

Maehr, M. L., & Yamaguchi, R.

(2001). Cultural diversity, studentmotivation, and achievement. In

F. Salili, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.),

Student motivation: The culture and

context o learning (pp. 121148). New

York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991).

Culture and the sel: Implications or

cognition, emotion, and motivation.

Psychological Review, 98, 224253.

McCarty, T. L. (2002). A place to be

Navajo. New York: Routledge.

McManus, S. (2008). Attributes

o eective ormative assessment.

Washington, DC: Council o Chie

State School Ocers. Retrieved

rom http://www.ccsso.org

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In

R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational

8/22/2019 Resource 1307

18/20

WestEd >>

8

measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13103).

New York: American Council on

Education and Macmillan.

Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., &

Almond, R. G. (2003). On the struc-

ture o educational assessments. CSE

Technical Report 597. Los Angeles:

UCLA National Center or Research

on Evaluation, Standards, and

Student Testing.

Mosher, F. A. (2011). The role o learn-

ing progressions in standards-based

education reorm. CPRE Policy Bries

RB-52. Philadelphia: University o

Pennsylvania, Consortium or Policy

Research in Education. Available at

http:/www.cpre.org.

Moss, P. (2008). Sociocultural impli-

cations or the practice o assess-

ment I: Classroom assessment. In

P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee,

E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.),

Assessment, equity, and opportunity

to learn (pp. 222258). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

National Joint Committee on Learn-

ing Disabilities. (2010). Comprehen-

sive assessment and evaluation ostudents with learning disabilities.

Retrieved rom http://www.ldanatl.org

Nelson-Barber, S., & Trumbull, E.

(2007). Making assessment practices

valid or Native American students.

Journal o Indian Education, Special

Issue.

Ochs, E., & Schieelin, B. (2011).

The theory o language socializa-

tion. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B.

Schieelin (Eds.), The handbooko language socialization (pp. 121).

Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Organization or Economic

Co-operation and Development

(OECD). (2005). Formative assess-

ment: Improving learning in sec-

ondary classrooms. [Policy Brie].

Retrieved rom http://www.oecd.

org/edu/ceri/35661078.pd

Otsuka, S., & Smith, I. D. (2005).

Educational applications o theexpectancy-value model o achieve-

ment motivation in the diverse cul-

tural contexts o the West and the

East. Change: Transormations in

Education, 8(1), 91109.

Pellegrino, J. W. (2006, November).

Rethinking and redesigning curricu-

lum, instruction, and assessment:

What contemporary research and

theory suggests. Paper commis-

sioned by the National Center on

Education and the Economy or theNew Commission on the Skills o the

American Workorce. Washington,

DC: National Center on Education

and the Economy.

Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., &

Glaser, R. (Eds.), (2001). Knowing

what students know: The science

and design o educational assess-

ment. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B., &Wurtzel, J. (2007). The role o interim

assessment in a comprehensive sys-

tem: A policy brie. Aspen, CO: The

Aspen Institute.

Perrenoud, P. (1991). Towards a prag-

matic approach to ormative evalua-

tion. In P. Weston (Ed.),Assessment

o pupils achievements: Motivation

and school success (pp. 79101).

Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Phelan, J., Kang, T., Niemi, D. N.,

Vendlinski, T., & Choi, K. (2009).

Some aspects o the technical quality

o ormative assessments in middle

school mathematics. CRESST Report

750. Los Angeles: UCLA National

Center or Research on Evaluation,

Standards, and Student Testing.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction o

reality in the child. New York: Basic

Books.

Popham, W. J. (2006). All about

accountability/phony ormative

assessments. Buyer beware! Educa-

tional Leadership64(3),8687.

Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2005,

September).A sociocultural theoriza-

tion o ormative assessment. Paper

presented at the Sociocultural Theory

in Educational Research and Practice

Conerence, Manchester, England.

Rich, C. S., Harrington, H., Kim, J.,

& West, B. (2008, March).Automated

essay scoring in state ormative and

summative writing assessment. Paper

presented at the annual meeting o

the American Educational Research

Association, New York.

Rogo, B. (1994). Developing under-

standing o the idea o communi-

ties o learners. Mind, Culture, and

Activity, 1(4), 209229.

Rogo, B. (1998). Cognition as

a collaborative process. In W.

Dam

resource 1307

Documents