Running Head: Formative Assessment 1

Running head: Formative Assessment 1

Formative Assessment

by

Debra N. Gaines

Kenya K. Larned

A paper

submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirement for

Classroom Assessment

RES 5560_375

Appalachian StateUniversity

August 4, 2010

Introduction

“Formative assessment as advocated to improve student achievement, improve the pedagogical practices of teachers and to provide specific instructional support to lower performing students is an almost unchallenged belief in education” (Dunn, 2009, p. 1). However, a review of literature reveals limited empirical evidence to support the use of formative assessment in the classroom that directly results in marked changes in educational outcomes. One of the challenges facing formative assessment researchers is a lack of consensus about what the term formative assessment means. According to Perie, Marion, and Gong (2007), assessment issues can be clarified if assessment is defined by its purpose. Utilizing this perspective, formative assessment can be defined as an assessment used by teachers and students to adjust teaching and learning. Pearson Educational Measurement Research Bulletin states that the term formative assessment is defined by more than the assessment itself. Dunn (2009) adds that formative assessment and its various manifestations…are defined not only by inherent characteristics, but also by the use of the assessments. Black and William (1998) defined formative assessments as “all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged”(p.10). Popham has provided two definitions, in 2006 he declared that an assessment is formative to the degree that the information is collected from the assessment used during the assessed instruction period to improve instruction to meet the needs of the students assessed; and in 2008, Popham elaborated more on the definition of formative assessment as a ‘planned process during which the teacher or students use assessment-based evidence to adjust ongoing learning and instruction’.

Journal Review

A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education

In this article the authors reviewed several research studies that Black and Wiliam (1998) most strongly relied on to support their conclusions about formative assessment. While the authors agree that there are benefits to utilizing formative assessment in the classroom, the authors examine the flaws in the methods employed to document the impact of formative assessments. One major concern was related to Fuch and Fuch (1998) which revealed that of the 3,835 participants, 83 percent were handicapped. Though the review was focused on formative assessment in the context of special education “generalizing this to the population of students at large, as Black and Wiliam (1998) did, is inappropriate” (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009, p. 5). The second issue that arose from Fuch and Fuch (1986) is they included articles that ranged from good to poor quality. In fact, of the 96 effect sizes they included in their analysis, 19 were labeled as good quality, 69 fair quality, and 8 as poor quality. “Thus 80 percent of the effect sizes from the studies examined came from the research that was methodically unsound” (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009). Whiting, Van Burgh and Render (1995) was also used to support Black and Wiliam (1998). This study reviewed seven thousand students and eighteen years of information, however, but only one teacher was studied which made it difficult to distinguish formative assessment effects from teacher effects.

A similar issue was found with Martinez and Martinez (1992) another study used to support the conclusion that formative assessment improves student achievement. Only two teachers were investigated, which would make the use of the study inappropriate. Several additional studies were reviewed by the authors Dunn & Mulvernon (2009) that also evidenced the limitations to studies used by Black and Wiliam (1998) to conclude that formative assessment significantly improves academic success.

On the Impact of Curriculum-Embedded Formative Assessment on Learning: A Collaboration between Curriculum and Assessment Developer

This study reviewed embedded formative assessment in a science curriculum through a collaboration between curriculum developers in the Curriculum Research & Development Group (CRDG) at the University of Hawaii and assessment developers in the Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory and Stanford University (SEAL). The goals were to test out whether embedding formative assessments within a science curriculum would improve teaching and learning, and to evaluate the assessment development process that emerged out of a collaborative relationship.

Twelve experienced teachers, identified as experts in teaching and drawn from across the United States, participated in the experiment. The teachers were divided into an experimental group of six teachers and a control group of 6 teachers. The experimental group taught the formative assessment embellished program while the control group taught the regular program.

This project examined the impact of embedded formative assessments in an inquiry-science curriculum on student’s achievement, conceptual change, and motivation. It tested conjectures based on practice and prior research. “The evidence tentatively suggests that when teachers employ formative assessment practices as intended in this study, student outcomes may be enhanced” (Shavelson & et al, 2008, p. 310).

On the Measurement and Impact of Formative Assessment on Students’ Motivation, Achievement, and Conceptual Change

The study explored whether formative assessments would improve student motivation, achievement, and consequently conceptual change. A randomized experimental design in a field setting was used and 12 middle school science teachers and their students participated in the study. It was found that student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change varied significantly among the participating teachers, but the formative assessment treatment did not have significant impact on these outcome variables. By comparing the experimental and control students’ motivation and achievement scores on the pretest and posttest, theyfound that the experimental group was not significantly influenced. “These finding did not support our conjectures about the salutatory effect of formative assessment on student outcomes or the findings reported in literature reviews” (Yin et al, 2008).

The Impact of Self-Assessment on Achievement

One of the tenets that formative assessment endorses is self assessment. McDonald and Boud (2003) decided to investigate if student performance could be positively influenced by specifically teaching students self assessment skills via training modules. The study took place at ten different high schools in Barbados. A total of 515 high school seniors participated. Students were divided into an experimental group that received ongoing instruction in self-assessment methods and strategies. Likewise, the experimental group teachers also received training and support regarding self assessment methodology. The control group neither received training or instruction on self-assessment. The participating classes were chose by triangulating student test performance, part choice and input from education officials. The schools chosen ranged from high performing schools to low achieving schools.

The program received ongoing monitoring through school visits, administrative partnerships and data collection. The self-assessment instruction and strategies were integrated into a variety of subject areas. At the end of the school year, the state examination results were analyzed and a survey was completed by the participants. The examination data showed a marked difference between the two groups, with the experimental group experiencing a .01 academic achievement level difference. The examiners concluded that not only did self-assessment positively affect test scores, but, they assert, it has the potential to provide skills for lifelong learning.

Plants and Photosynthesis: Peer Assessment to Help Students Learn

Peer assessment is another tool to aid students in becoming self motivated learners. A six week study was conducted in a science class with students who were high performers. Twenty-three Caucasian, middle school students participated in this study, designed to evaluate the effect of using peer assessment to influence both learning and student motivation. The topic of photosynthesis was introduced to the students and the students created a concept map detailing their level of prior knowledge. Throughout the six week trial, students were paired with the same buddy, based on primarily on academic congruence and in some cases secondarily, on social preferences. Students were provided formal instruction on peer assessment and given specific criteria for each assignment that underwent the peer assessment process. The students worked together as partners on some part of the daily lesson each day. The results from a student pre and post study questionnaire were also analyzed and the final test results.

When students revisited and added to the concept maps that they had completed at the beginning of the unit, there was a substantial amount of learning evident. A Fischer C predictions protocol was applied to the student’s test scores to analyze whether the students superseded the anticipated testing expectations. Five out of the twenty-three students scored significantly higher than expected, however three out of the twenty-three students did worse than predicted. The post survey results revealed that fifteen out of twenty-three students viewed their peers as important to their learning process.

This study provides credence to the use of peer assessment in the formative assessment process. The study, however, leaves the door open for greater exploration on several levels. The size of the study was very small, which can lend itself to unreliable results or conclusions. The study was conducted using only on race of children (Caucasian), which could potentially taint the results with cultural bias. Finally, the testing results could have been strengthened through the use of a control group and a study time frame that extended beyond six weeks.

Student Self-Evaluation Processes in Student-Centered Teaching and Learning Contexts in Australia and England

A qualitative study was completed regarding the impact of self assessment using students from an English and Australian high school. Like McDonald and Boud (2003), teachers were provided professional development to help them incorporate self-assessment strategies in the classroom. Teachers implemented strategies such as the round, the fishbowl, the barometer and portfolios to help students self analyze their learning. Conclusions were drawn based on interviews, documentation, observations, and teacher records.

At both sites, students reported that their performance, as well as content knowledge, was enhanced due to the implementation of self-assessment strategies. Both teachers and students acknowledged the importance of utilizing criteria that is specific and clear to successfully facilitate self assessment. Students engaged in self critiquing and, in some cases, peer evaluations. Criteria clarity was the key to unlocking learning expectations and goals. Opportunities were also provided for students to develop the scoring standards allowing expectations to become more explicit. The research also discovered that dialogue between the teacher and student was also critical to the success of self assessment in the formative assessment process. It allowed students to crystallize how a component could be improved and conversely provided the teacher insight into the student’s learning. Students were empowered in the self-assessment process when they evaluated and assigned grades to their own work, based on pre-determined rubrics. Researchers concluded that self-assessment strategies promote greater student responsibility for their learning and metacognitive thinking.

Formative Assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice:

This article examines synthesizes various studies about student feedback into 7 succinct principles. Because teachers (following state and district guidelines), establish the learning goals and task direction in the classroom, the unintended effect can be to minimize students self-regulation skills. Effective feedback must clarify the learning targets and goals. Exemplary examples of the learning target can increase student understanding of the expected outcome and reduce confusion. The authors also recommend providing opportunities for students to reflect on their own learning. Timely teacher feedback is critical to help students understand their progress, as well as identify any possible learning misconceptions. Effective feedback is generated before the task is finalized and is corrective in nature, so that modifications can be made to enhance understanding or correct misconceptions. Providing students the opportunities to have dialogue about their feedback is another principle designed to promote self-learning. Students must be provided opportunities to dialogue and respond to feedback from either the teacher or his/her peers. Research has demonstrated that feedback in the form of articulated grades, increases inter-student competitiveness and can have a negative effect on low performing students. Focusing feedback on student effort and strategic behaviors has a stronger impact on student achievement than feedback that is centered on student ability. Students also benefit from feedback that allows them opportunity to correct a work in progress. Corrective feedback becomes more valuable to students as they are empowered to change their final outcome by responding to the feedback. Finally, feedback should be a two way street flowing from teacher to student and student to teacher. The authors advocate the “one minute paper” strategy, where students respond to a question at the end of a class.

The authors cited numerous studies throughout their paper, but never was one issue raised- the issue of time! With the student to teacher ratio rising, it is difficult to maintain an adequate balance between the demands of instruction time and providing ongoing, effective student feedback.

Improving the Way We Grade Science

Grading across from classroom to classroom, school to school are by nature, a subjective student achievement measurement tool. A guiding principle driving formative assessment is it illuminates student learning. A pilot study of 8th grade science students occurred in Quakertown, PA, where the current grading system was replaced with a formative model. The model evaluated student progress in terms of mastery of the content standards, rather than the application of letter grades. The teacher determined three levels of content knowledge using the concept of a traffic light. Green represented evidence of content mastery. Yellow indicated that the knowledge was developing, but there were gaps in the knowledge base. Red was used to designate beginning knowledge of the objective or below standard knowledge. The assessments were ongoing and the grade was only finalized at the end of the unit of study. This provided students with the opportunity to improve their grade and the focus of their grade to reflect their level of progression in the content knowledge. The students reported that they had a more clear understanding of the expectations and learning progressions in their 8th grade science class. There was improvement in the test results at the end of the year, when compared with the previous classes’ results.

While this study was small in scope and size, the results did correlate with a larger study by Black and Wiliam (1998) and also Hayes (2003). A question begs to be asked of the education community, why haven’t more of us embraced a standards- based assessment system?

Classroom Assessment, Minute by Minute, Day by Day

The strength to formative assessment is its adaptable nature, yet this is also its Achilles heel. Some educators will pay limit service to formative assessment, yet the ongoing application of formative assessment is frequently amiss in schools across America. Leahy et al. (2005) describes the workshop content provided to in-service teachers provided in several different formats. Irrespective of the format time table, teachers received instruction on the following five guiding principles of formative assessment: First, like Nichol and MacFarlene-Dick (2006), students need clearly articulated learning targets and examples of exemplary student work. The learning intentions need to be conveyed in student friendly language. Classroom discussion is most effective when questions are pre-planned, and teachers actively listen to student responses rather than listening only for the correct answer. Forethought must be centered on designing “range finding” questions, which enable the teacher to assess the depth and level of conceptual understanding that students have obtained. In addition, planning “hinge questions” allows the teacher the opportunity to adjust the lesson pacing or directionality, dependent upon student responses.

As with McDonald and Boud (2003), the authors agree that feedback is a critical component to the successful implementation of formative assessment. Feedback must be timely, specific and corrective in nature. Corrective feedback has the capacity to promote greater focus on metacognition. The fourth step compliments the third, allowing students to take ownership in their own learning through the use of specific rubrics and assessment criteria. Finally, constructing knowledge and engaging in assessment activities with peers allows students to learn from each other, providing the teacher centers the design of the peer assessment around the promotion of improvement not grade assignment. This finding was also supported by Crane and Winterbottom’s research (2008).