Formative assessment

Formative assessment, including diagnostic testing, is a range of formal and informal assessment procedures conducted by teachers during the learning process in order to modify teaching and learning activities to improve student attainment.[1] It typically involves qualitative feedback (rather than scores) for both student and teacher that focuses on the details of content and performance.[2] It is commonly contrasted with summative assessment, which seeks to monitor educational outcomes, often for purposes of external accountability.[3]

Definition

Practice in a classroom is formative to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited.[4]

Origin of the term

Michael Scriven coined the terms formative and summative evaluation in 1967, and emphasized their differences both in terms of the goals of the information they seek and how the information is used.[5] For Scriven, formative evaluation gathered information to assess the effectiveness of a curriculum and guide school system choices as to which curriculum to adopt and how to improve it.[6] Benjamin Bloom took up the term in 1968 in the book Learning for Mastery to consider formative assessment as a tool for improving the teaching-learning process for students.[7] His subsequent 1971 book Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluation, written with Thomas Hasting and George Madaus, showed how formative assessments could be linked to instructional units in a variety of content areas.[8] It is this approach that reflects the generally accepted meaning of the term today.[9] For both Scriven and Bloom, an assessment, whatever its other uses, is only formative if it is used to alter subsequent educational decisions.[6] Subsequently, however, Black and Wiliam have suggested this definition is too restrictive, since formative assessments may be used to provide evidence that the intended course of action was indeed appropriate. They propose that:

Practice in a classroom is formative to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited.[4]

Versus summative assessment

The type of assessment that people may be more familiar with is summative assessment. The table below[10] shows some basic differences between the two types of assessment.

Summative Assessment Formative Assessment
When At the end of a learning activity During a learning activity
Goal To make a decision To improve learning
Feedback Final judgement Return to material
Frame of Reference Sometimes normative (comparing each student

against all others); sometimes criterion

 Always criterion (evaluating students according to the same criteria)

Rationale and practice

Formative assessment serves several purposes:

Characteristics of formative assessment:

According to Harlen and James (1997), formative assessment:

Feedback is the central function of formative assessment. It typically involves a focus on the detailed content of what is being learnt,[2] rather than simply a test score or other measurement of how far a student is falling short of the expected standard.[13] Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, synthesising from the literature, list seven principles of good feedback practice:

  1. It clarifies what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards);
  2. It facilitates the development of self-assessment in learning;
  3. It provides high quality information to students about their learning;
  4. It encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
  5. It encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
  6. It provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
  7. It provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape teaching.[13][14]

Examples

The time between formative assessment and adjustments to learning can be a matter of seconds or a matter of months.[6] Some examples of formative assessment are:

Evidence

Meta-analysis of studies into formative assessment have indicated significant learning gains where formative assessment is used, across all content areas, knowledge and skill types, and levels of education.[18] Educational researcher Robert J. Marzano states:

Recall the finding from Black and Wiliam's (1998) synthesis of more than 250 studies that formative assessments, as opposed to summative ones, produce the more powerful effect on student learning. In his review of the research, Terrance Crooks (1988) reports that effects sizes for summative assessments are consistently lower than effect sizes for formative assessments. In short, it is formative assessment that has a strong research base supporting its impact on learning.[19]:9

While empirical evidence has shown the substantial impact formative assessment has in raising student achievement,[18] it is also "recognized as one of the most powerful ways to enhance student motivation".[20] Believing in their ability to learn, contributing learning successes to individual efforts and abilities, emphasizing progress toward learning goals rather than letter grades, and evaluating "the nature of their thinking to identify strategies that improve understanding"[21] are all manners in which motivation is enhanced through an effective use of formative assessment.[20] However, for these gains to become evident formative assessment must (1) Clarify and share learning goals and success criteria; (2) Create effective classroom discussions and other tasks which demonstrate evidence of student understanding; (3) provide feedback which can and will be acted upon; (4) allow students to become instructional resources for one another; and (5) stimulate students to become owners of their own learning.[22]

Some researchers have concluded that standards-based assessments may be an effective way to "prescribe instruction and to ensure that no child is left behind".[19]:13

The strongest evidence of improved learning gains comes from short-cycle (over seconds or minutes within a single lesson) formative assessment, and medium to long-term assessment where assessment is used to change the teacher's regular classroom practice.[6]

Strategies

Understanding goals for learning

It is important for students to understand the goals and the criteria for success when learning in the classroom. Often teachers will introduce learning goals to their students before a lesson, but will not do an effective job in distinguishing between the end goals and what the students will be doing to achieve those goals.[17] "When teachers start from what it is they want students to know and design their instruction backward from that goal, then instruction is far more likely to be effective".[23] In a study done by Gray and Tall,[24] they found that 72 students between the ages of 7 and 13 had different experiences when learning in mathematics. The study showed that higher achieving students looked over mathematical ambiguities, while the lower achieving students tended to get stuck on these misunderstandings. An example of this[17] can be seen in the number . Although it is not explicitly stated, the operation between these two numbers is addition. If we look at the number , here the implied operation between and is multiplication. Finally if we take a look at the number , there is a completely different operation between the 6 and 1. The study showed that higher achieving students were able to look past this while other students were not.

Another study done by White and Frederiksen[25] showed that when twelve 7th grade science classrooms were given time to reflect on what they deemed to be quality work, and how they thought they would be evaluated on their work, the gap between the high achieving students and the low achieving students was decreased.

One way to help with this is to offer students different examples of other students' work so they can evaluate the different pieces. By examining the different levels of work, students can start to differentiate between superior and inferior work.

Feedback

There has been extensive research done on studying how students are affected by feedback. Kluger and DeNisi (1996)[26] reviewed over three thousand reports on feedback in schools, universities, and the workplace. Of these, only 131 of them were found to be scientifically rigorous and of those, 50 of the studies shows that feedback actually has negative effects on its recipients. This is due to the fact that feedback is often "ego-involving",[17] that is the feedback focuses on the individual student rather than the quality of the student's work. Feedback is often given in the form of some numerical or letter grade and that perpetuates students being compared to their peers. The studies previously mentioned showed that the most effective feedback for students is when they are not only told in which areas they need to improve, but also how to go about improving it.

It has been shown that leaving comments alongside grades is just as ineffective as giving solely a numerical/letter grade (Butler 1987, 1989).[27] This is due to the fact that students tend to look at their grade and disregard any comments that are given to them. The next thing students tend to do is to ask other students in the class for their grade, and they compare the grade to their own grade.

Questioning

Questioning is an important part of the learning process and an even more important part is asking the right types of questions. Questions that promote discussion and student reflection make it easier for students to go on the right path to end up completing their learning goals. Here are some types of questions that are good to ask students:

Wait time

Wait time is the amount of time that is given to a student to answer a question that was posed and the time allowed for the student to answer. Mary Budd Rowe[28] went on to look at the outcomes of having longer wait times for students. These included:

Peer-assessment

Having students assess each other's work has been studied to have numerous benefits:[29]

In K–12

Formative assessment is valuable for day-to-day teaching when used to adapt instructional methods to meet students' needs and for monitoring student progress toward learning goals. Further, it helps students monitor their own progress as they get feedback from the teacher and/or peers, allowing the opportunity to revise and refine their thinking. Formative assessment is also known as educative assessment, classroom assessment, or assessment for learning.

Methods

There are many ways to integrate formative assessment into K–12 classrooms. Although the key concepts of formative assessment such as constant feedback, modifying the instruction, and information about students' progress do not vary among different disciplines or levels, the methods or strategies may differ. For example, researchers developed generative activities (Stroup et al., 2004)[30] and model-eliciting activities (Lesh et al., 2000)[31] that can be used as formative assessment tools in mathematics and science classrooms. Others developed strategies computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Wang et al., 2004b).[32] More information about implication of formative assessment in specific areas is given below.

Purpose

Formative assessment, or diagnostic testing as the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards argues, serves to create effective teaching curricula and classroom-specific evaluations.[33] By focusing on student-centered activities, a student is able to relate the material to his life and experiences. Students are encouraged to think critically and to develop analytical skills. This type of testing allows for a teacher's lesson plan to be clear, creative, and reflective of the curriculum (T.P Scot et al., 2009).[34]

Based on the Appalachian Education Laboratory (AEL), "diagnostic testing" emphasizes effective teaching practices while "considering learners' experiences and their unique conceptions" (T.P Scot et al., 2009).[34] Furthermore, it provides the framework for "efficient retrieval and application"(T.P Scot et al., 2009).[34] by urging students to take charge of their education. The implications of this type of testing,is developing a knowledgeable student with deep understanding of the information and then be able to account for a students' comprehension on a subject.

Specific applications

The following are examples of application of formative assessment to content areas:

In math education

In math education, it is important for teachers to see how their students approach the problems and how much mathematical knowledge and at what level students use when solving the problems. That is, knowing how students think in the process of learning or problem solving makes it possible for teachers to help their students overcome conceptual difficulties and, in turn, improve learning. In that sense, formative assessment is diagnostic. To employ formative assessment in the classrooms, a teacher has to make sure that each student participates in the learning process by expressing their ideas; there is a trustful environment in which students can provide each other with feedback; s/he (the teacher) provides students with feedback; and the instruction is modified according to students' needs. In math classes, thought revealing activities such as model-eliciting activities (MEAs) and generative activities provide good opportunities for covering these aspects of formative assessment.

Feedback examples

Here are some examples of possible feedback for students in math education:[17]

Different approaches for feedback encourage pupils to reflect:[35]

Another method has students looking to each other to gain knowledge.

In second/foreign language education

As an ongoing assessment it focuses on the process, it helps teachers to check the current status of their students' language ability, that is, they can know what the students know and what the students do not know. It also gives chances to students to participate in modifying or planning the upcoming classes (Bachman & Palmer, 1996).[36] Participation in their learning grows students' motivation to learn the target language. It also raises students' awareness on their target languages, which results in resetting their own goals. In consequence, it helps students to achieve their goals successfully as well as teachers be the facilitators to foster students' target language ability.

In classroom, short quizzes, reflectionals journals, or portfolios could be used as a formative assessment (Cohen, 1994).[37]

In elementary education

In primary schools, it is used to inform the next steps of learning. Teachers and students both use formative assessments as a tool to make decisions based on data. Formative assessment occurs when teachers feed information back to students in ways that enable the student to learn better, or when students can engage in a similar, self-reflective process. The evidence shows that high quality formative assessment does have a powerful impact on student learning. Black and Wiliam (1998) report that studies of formative assessment show an effect size on standardized tests of between 0.4 and 0.7, larger than most known educational interventions. (The effect size is the ratio of the average improvement in test scores in the innovation to the range of scores of typical groups of pupils on the same tests; Black and Wiliam recognize that standardized tests are very limited measures of learning.) Formative assessment is particularly effective for students who have not done well in school, thus narrowing the gap between low and high achievers while raising overall achievement. Research examined by Black and Wiliam supports the conclusion that summative assessments tend to have a negative effect on student learning.

Activities that can be used as assessment tools in math and science classrooms

Model-eliciting activities (MEAs)

Model-eliciting activities are based on real-life situations where students, working in small groups, present a mathematical model as a solution to a client's need (Zawojewski & Carmona, 2001).[38] The problem design enables students to evaluate their solutions according to the needs of a client identified in the problem situation and sustain themselves in productive, progressively effective cycles of conceptualizing and problem solving. Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) are ideally structured to help students build their real-world sense of problem solving towards increasingly powerful mathematical constructs. What is especially useful for mathematics educators and researchers is the capacity of MEAs to make students' thinking visible through their models and modeling cycles. Teachers do not prompt the use of particular mathematical concepts or their representational counterparts when presenting the problems. Instead, they choose activities that maximize the potential for students to develop the concepts that are the focal point in the curriculum by building on their early and intuitive ideas. The mathematical models emerge from the students' interactions with the problem situation and learning is assessed via these emergent behaviors.

Generative activities

In a generative activity, students are asked to come up with outcomes that are mathematically same. Students can arrive at the responses or build responses from this sameness in a wide range of ways. The sameness gives coherence to the task and allows it to be an "organizational unit for performing a specific function." (Stroup et al., 2004)

Other activities can also be used as the means of formative assessment as long as they ensure the participation of every student, make students' thoughts visible to each other and to the teacher, promote feedback to revise and refine thinking. In addition, as a complementary to all of these is to modify and adapt instruction through the information gathered by those activities.

In computer-supported learning

Many academics are seeking to diversify assessment tasks, broaden the range of skills assessed and provide students with more timely and informative feedback on their progress. Others are wishing to meet student expectations for more flexible delivery and to generate efficiencies in assessment that can ease academic staff workloads. The move to on-line and computer based assessment is a natural outcome of the increasing use of information and communication technologies to enhance learning. As more students seek flexibility in their courses, it seems inevitable there will be growing expectations for flexible assessment as well. When implementing online and computer-based instruction, it is recommended that a structured framework or model be used to guide the assessment.

In UK education

In the UK education system, formative assessment (or assessment for learning) has been a key aspect of the agenda for personalised learning. The Working Group on 14–19 Reform led by Sir Mike Tomlinson, recommended that assessment of learners be refocused to be more teacher-led and less reliant on external assessment, putting learners at the heart of the assessment process.[39]

The UK government has stated[40] that personalised learning depends on teachers knowing the strengths and weaknesses of individual learners, and that a key means of achieving this is through formative assessment, involving high quality feedback to learners included within every teaching session.[41]

The Assessment Reform Group has set out the following 10 principles for formative assessment.[42]

Learning should:

Benefits for teachers (Boston, 2002)

Benefits for students

Common formative assessments

The practice of common formative assessments is a way for teachers to use assessments to beneficially adjust their teaching pedagogy. The concept is that teachers who teach a common class can provide their classes with a common assessment. The results of that assessment could provide the teachers with valuable information, the most important being who on that teacher team is seeing the most success with his or her students on a given topic or standard. It is essential to note that the purpose of this practice is to provide feedback for teachers, not necessarily students, so an assignment could be considered formative for teachers, but summative for students. Researchers Kim Bailey and Chris Jakicic have stated that common formative assessments "Promote efficiency for teachers, promote equity for students, provide an effective strategy for determining whether the guaranteed curriculum is being taught and, more importantly, learned, inform the practice of individual teachers, build a team's capacity to improve its program, facilitate a systematic, collective response to students who are experiencing difficulty, [and] offer the most powerful tool for changing adult behavior and practice."[47]

Developing common formative assessments on a teacher team helps educators to address what Bailey and Jakicic lay out as the important questions to answer when reflecting on student progress.[47] These include:

Common formative assessments are a way to address the second question. Teachers can collect data on how students are doing to gain understanding and insight on whether students are learning, and how they are making sense of the lessons being taught. After gathering this data, teachers can proceed to develop systems and plans to address the third and fourth questions and, over several years, modify the first question to fit the learning needs of their specific students.

When utilizing common formative assessments to collect data on student progress, teachers can compare their students' results. In tandem, they can also share the strategies they used in the classroom to teach that particular concept. With these things in mind, the teacher team can make some evaluations on what tasks and explanations seemed to produce the best student outcomes. Teachers who used alternate strategies now have new ideas for interventions and for when they teach the topic in upcoming years. Teacher teams can also use common formative assessments to review and calibrate their scoring practices. Teachers of a common class should aim to be as consistent as possible in evaluating their students. Comparing formative assessments, or having all teachers evaluate them together, is a way for teachers to adjust their grading criteria before the summative assessment. Through this practice, teachers are presented with an opportunity to grow professionally with the people who know them and understand their school environment.

To make the practice of teacher teams, common formative assessments, and power standards the most advantageous, the practice of backwards design should be utilized. Backwards design is the idea in education that the summative assessment should be developed first and that all formative work and lessons leading up to that specific assessment should be created second. Tomlinson and McTighe wrote, “Although not a new idea, we have found that the deliberate use of backwards design for planning courses, units, and individual lessons results in more clearly defined goals, more appropriate assessments, and more purposeful teaching."[48] More specifically, intervention and re-teaching time must be factored into the schedule. It is unrealistic to think that every student will get every topic perfect and ready to take the summative assessment on a prescribed schedule.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Crooks,, T. (2001). "The Validity of Formative Assessments". British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, September 13–15, 2001.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Huhta, Ari (2010). "Diagnostic and Formative Assessment". In Spolsky, Bernard; Hult, Francis M. The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 469–482.
  3. 1 2 3 Shepard, Lorrie A. (2005). "Formative assessment: Caveat emptor" (PDF). ETS Invitational Conference The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning, New York, October 10–11, 2005. Retrieved 25 August 2011.
  4. 1 2 Black, Paul; Wiliam, Dylan (2009). "Developing the theory of formative assessment". Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 21 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
  5. ↑ Scriven, Michael (1967). "The methodology of evaluation". In Stake, R. E. Curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally. American Educational Research Association (monograph series on evaluation, no. 1.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wiliam, Dylan (2006). "Formative assessment: getting the focus right". Educational Assessment. 11: 283–289. doi:10.1080/10627197.2006.9652993.
  7. ↑ Bloom, Benjamin S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Los Angeles, USA: University of California press.
  8. ↑ Bloom,, Benjamin S.; Hasting, Thomas; Madaus, George (1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
  9. ↑ Black, Paul; Wiliam, Dylan (2003). "'In praise of educational research': formative assessment". British Educational Research Journal. 29 (5): 623–637. doi:10.1080/0141192032000133721.
  10. ↑ R. Pr ́egent, Charting your course: How to prepare to teach more effectively, Atwood, 2000.
  11. ↑ Cauley, K, M.; McMillan, J. H. (2010). "Formative Assessment Techniques". The Clearing House. 83 (1).
  12. ↑ Harlen, Wynne; James, Mary (1997). "Assessment and Learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment". Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 4 (3): 365–379. doi:10.1080/0969594970040304.
  13. 1 2 Nicol, David; Macfarlane-Dick, Debra (2005). Rethinking Formative Assessment in HE: a theoretical model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
  14. ↑ Nicol, David J.; Macfarlane-Dick, Debra (2006). "Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good practice". Studies in Higher Education. 31 (2): 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090.
  15. ↑ Cowie, Bronwen; Bell, Beverley (1999). "A model of formative assessment in science education". Assessment in Education. 6: 101–116. doi:10.1080/09695949993026.
  16. ↑ Buldu 2009
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 ORDER, IN. "Five "Key Strategies" for Effective Formative Assessment." (2007).
  18. 1 2 Black, Paul; Wiliam, Dylan (1998). "Assessment and Classroom Learning". Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 5 (1): 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
  19. 1 2 Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessments and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  20. 1 2 Cauley, Kathleen; McMillan, James (2010). "Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement". The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 83 (1): 1–6.
  21. ↑ McMillan, James; Hearn, Jessica (2008). "Student Self-assessment: The Key to Stronger Student Motivation and Higher Achievement". Educational Horizons. 87 (1): 40–49.
  22. ↑ Wiliam, Dylan; Thompson, M (2008). "Integrating Assessment with Instruction: What will it take to make it work?". In C. A. Dwyer. The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning. Routledge. pp. 53–82.
  23. ↑ Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. New York: Prentice Hall, 2000.
  24. ↑ Gray, Eddie M.; Tall, David O. (1994). "Duality, Ambiguity, and Flexibility: A 'Proceptual' View of Simple Arithmetic". Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 25 (2): 116. doi:10.2307/749505.
  25. ↑ White, Barbara Y.; Frederiksen, John R. (1998). "Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students". Cognition and Instruction. 16 (1): 3–118. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2.
  26. ↑ Kluger, Avraham N.; DeNisi, Angelo (1996). "The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.". Psychological Bulletin. 119 (2): 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
  27. ↑ Butler, Ruth (1987). "Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance.". Journal of Educational Psychology. 79 (4): 474–482. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474.
  28. ↑ Row, Mary Budd (1974). "Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part one-wait-time". Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 11 (2): 81–94. doi:10.1002/tea.3660110202.
  29. ↑ P. Black and D. Wiliam, Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, Depart- ment of education & professional studies, GL Assessment, 2006.
  30. ↑ Stroup, W. M., Ares, N., & Hurford, A. C. (2004). A taxonomy of generative activity design supported by next generation classroom networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  31. ↑ Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, E., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-645). Mahaway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  32. ↑ Wang, Tzu-Hua (2007). "What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e-learning environment?". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 23 (3): 171–186. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00211.x.
  33. ↑ http://www.nbpts.org/help_and_faqs/assessment
  34. 1 2 3 Pandina Scot, Tammy; Callahan, Carolyn M.; Urquhart, Jill (2009). "Paint-by-Number Teachers and Cookie-Cutter Students: The Unintended Effects of High-Stakes Testing on the Education of Gifted Students". Roeper Review. 31 (1): 40–52. doi:10.1080/02783190802527364.
  35. ↑ Hodgen, Jeremy, and Dylan Wiliam. Mathematics inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Mathematics Classroom. London: NFER-Nelson, 2006.
  36. ↑ Bachman. L.F. & Palmer A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press.
  37. ↑ Cohen. A. (1994). Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
  38. ↑ Zawojewski, J., & Carmona, G. (2001). A developmental and social perspective on problem solving strategies. In R. Speiser & C. Walter (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
  39. ↑ Jones, Dr Cheryl A, Assessment for Learning, Learning and Skills Development Agency (now the Learning and Skills Network) (2005), p.1
  40. ↑ A national conversation about personalised learning – a summary of the DfES discussion pamphlet, Department for Education and Skills (2005), p.8
  41. ↑ Duckett, Ian and Brooke, Di, Learning and Skills Network (2007), p.1
  42. ↑ Assessment for Learning: 10 research-based principles to guide classroom practice, Assessment Reform Group (2002), p.2
  43. ↑ Boston, Carol (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9).
  44. ↑ Cooper, Beverley; Cowie, Bronwen (2010). "Collaborative research for assessment for learning". Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (4): 979–986. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.040.
  45. ↑ Marzano, Robert J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  46. ↑ Stiggins, R.J., Arter, J.A., Chappius, J. & Chappius, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service.
  47. 1 2 Bailey, K.; Jakicic, C. (2012). Common Formative Assessment: A Toolkit for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
  48. ↑ Tomlinson, C.A.; McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding By Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. p. 27.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.