FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS
INTRODUCTION
A lot of people use the words “formative assessments” to describe assessments that are not formative in nature. For example, educational businesses may use the word (since it’s “the new hotness”)to sell products which are really interim in nature. Adding to the confusion is the newness of the descriptor “interim;” which very often is a more accurate way to describe many of the assessments named “formative.” According to an article by Valencia (Chapter 16, [not published]), the concept of formative was given new life following the seminal study by Black and William (1988) in their review and
summary of 250 educational studies. Following this study, the relatively-new/recently-forgotten concept caught on. As a teacher, my earliest conception of the term formative assessment was synonymous with classroom assessment—the day-to-day questioning of students as I attempted to figure out what was going on with them (in their reading and comprehension) in order to help them.
Within the aegis of such a loose definition it can be argued that all teachers use formative assessments. However, can such a process—the mere asking of questions—really encapsulate the definition of the educational research and its results; results currently undergoing a metamorphosis into formative assessment? I am coming to see that it does not. A great many teachers use questions but this does not make those questions or that process
formative. For example, some teacher questions are “formative”merely by happenstance while others may truly be formative, but only as the teacher implements them as an art of teaching by blind chance or as he parrots how his own teachers once taught him. If I am any example, many
teachers are not able to use questioning in a thoughtful, deliberate and purposeful manner. For example, I do believe that I use classroom assessments in my class. And I may even believe that I use formative assessments; if by that term I mean that I am trying to inform myself as to what the student knows about the science book’s content. When I assess, however, without being aware that my questioning must inform my ownmethods of teaching as well as my students’ learning (as I often fail to do) then my assessments are not truly formative. And that’s the point at which Valencia’s article hooked me and made me think.
According to her, my assessments are not formative in nature if they do not meet three criteria. In the first place, the results of my questioning must modify not only the students’ learning, but also my own teaching. In the second place, to be truly formative in nature, the results of my questioning must be shared with my students so that they can understand how to improve their own learning. As such, one of the purposes of my questioning is to produce data which will be used to teach and encourage my students to become independent learners who are aware of how to learn and who know what is motivating them to learn. Finally, Valencia says that my assessments are only formative if they are deliberate through prior planning as well as responsive to individual learners in a group setting—no easy task!
PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE
The purpose of a formative assessment is not primarily, or even merely, to ascertain if the student is reading fluently at his grade level and comprehending the material. If this were the purpose, such an assessment would not be in line with current learning research; which includes the importance of self-monitoring (by teacher and student), knowing the bias of the author, etc.
Instead, the purpose of the formative assessment is to produce information about a student’s learning which both the student and teacher discuss in order that they both know what steps they need to take to improve the learning andthe teaching. The purpose, therefore, is not mainly to produce a product (data); it is to inform an ongoing and interconnected process.
Initially, the audience is the teacher. If he is doing his job then the audience may become both the teacher and the student. Ideally, movement by the student will be away from grades and other extrinsic results and towards internal motivations such as a desire to be involved in the process of learning for the sake of learning and the desire to become more complete as a learner.
MATERIALS AND CONSISTENCY OF USE
The materials used in a formative assessment are not consistent. In the first place, the word “materials” is a bit of a misnomer. There is no formal, scripted test which one can touch. Assessment happens “on the fly” and in the ever-changing now. Every situation is unique because of time, space, material being covered, prior knowledge, and a host of other variables. To help me to remember their more informal nature; I like to say that there is no “formal” in formative. Because formative assessments are tailored for each student (or, at least, “arise” in separate circumstances) the
questions asked will be different. This means that “not all students will receive the same assessment or the same [teacher] feedback” (Valencia Ch. 15, p.390 [unpublished]). As for these assessments consistency, a term which refers to the similarity of the assessment from one administrator to another, they fail to meet the criteria. Since the materials are not consistent from one minute to the next, even within the same teacher-student pair, it is easy to see that they are not going to be consistent from one teacher to the next teacher, even if both are assessing the same material with the same student.
ADMINISTRATION AND FLEXIBILTY
Formative assessments are administered by a classroom teacher. Although the questions that initiate them happen in the classroom and can be directed to the class as a whole, they are individual in nature because the question must, practically, be fielded by one student. That being said, there is often an audience to the assessment… and that audience can be informed from the teacher-with-single-student transaction that they witness.
The formative assessment is the most flexible assessment in the summative-interim-formative trio. The questions can vary depending on what prior knowledge is being probed, what concepts are being covered, what subject matter is being discussed, or what thinking process is being dissected.
There is no script the teacher is forced to utter and no path the teacher is demanded to follow.
Written By: Eric Lubbers
INTRODUCTION
A lot of people use the words “formative assessments” to describe assessments that are not formative in nature. For example, educational businesses may use the word (since it’s “the new hotness”)to sell products which are really interim in nature. Adding to the confusion is the newness of the descriptor “interim;” which very often is a more accurate way to describe many of the assessments named “formative.” According to an article by Valencia (Chapter 16, [not published]), the concept of formative was given new life following the seminal study by Black and William (1988) in their review and
summary of 250 educational studies. Following this study, the relatively-new/recently-forgotten concept caught on. As a teacher, my earliest conception of the term formative assessment was synonymous with classroom assessment—the day-to-day questioning of students as I attempted to figure out what was going on with them (in their reading and comprehension) in order to help them.
Within the aegis of such a loose definition it can be argued that all teachers use formative assessments. However, can such a process—the mere asking of questions—really encapsulate the definition of the educational research and its results; results currently undergoing a metamorphosis into formative assessment? I am coming to see that it does not. A great many teachers use questions but this does not make those questions or that process
formative. For example, some teacher questions are “formative”merely by happenstance while others may truly be formative, but only as the teacher implements them as an art of teaching by blind chance or as he parrots how his own teachers once taught him. If I am any example, many
teachers are not able to use questioning in a thoughtful, deliberate and purposeful manner. For example, I do believe that I use classroom assessments in my class. And I may even believe that I use formative assessments; if by that term I mean that I am trying to inform myself as to what the student knows about the science book’s content. When I assess, however, without being aware that my questioning must inform my ownmethods of teaching as well as my students’ learning (as I often fail to do) then my assessments are not truly formative. And that’s the point at which Valencia’s article hooked me and made me think.
According to her, my assessments are not formative in nature if they do not meet three criteria. In the first place, the results of my questioning must modify not only the students’ learning, but also my own teaching. In the second place, to be truly formative in nature, the results of my questioning must be shared with my students so that they can understand how to improve their own learning. As such, one of the purposes of my questioning is to produce data which will be used to teach and encourage my students to become independent learners who are aware of how to learn and who know what is motivating them to learn. Finally, Valencia says that my assessments are only formative if they are deliberate through prior planning as well as responsive to individual learners in a group setting—no easy task!
PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE
The purpose of a formative assessment is not primarily, or even merely, to ascertain if the student is reading fluently at his grade level and comprehending the material. If this were the purpose, such an assessment would not be in line with current learning research; which includes the importance of self-monitoring (by teacher and student), knowing the bias of the author, etc.
Instead, the purpose of the formative assessment is to produce information about a student’s learning which both the student and teacher discuss in order that they both know what steps they need to take to improve the learning andthe teaching. The purpose, therefore, is not mainly to produce a product (data); it is to inform an ongoing and interconnected process.
Initially, the audience is the teacher. If he is doing his job then the audience may become both the teacher and the student. Ideally, movement by the student will be away from grades and other extrinsic results and towards internal motivations such as a desire to be involved in the process of learning for the sake of learning and the desire to become more complete as a learner.
MATERIALS AND CONSISTENCY OF USE
The materials used in a formative assessment are not consistent. In the first place, the word “materials” is a bit of a misnomer. There is no formal, scripted test which one can touch. Assessment happens “on the fly” and in the ever-changing now. Every situation is unique because of time, space, material being covered, prior knowledge, and a host of other variables. To help me to remember their more informal nature; I like to say that there is no “formal” in formative. Because formative assessments are tailored for each student (or, at least, “arise” in separate circumstances) the
questions asked will be different. This means that “not all students will receive the same assessment or the same [teacher] feedback” (Valencia Ch. 15, p.390 [unpublished]). As for these assessments consistency, a term which refers to the similarity of the assessment from one administrator to another, they fail to meet the criteria. Since the materials are not consistent from one minute to the next, even within the same teacher-student pair, it is easy to see that they are not going to be consistent from one teacher to the next teacher, even if both are assessing the same material with the same student.
ADMINISTRATION AND FLEXIBILTY
Formative assessments are administered by a classroom teacher. Although the questions that initiate them happen in the classroom and can be directed to the class as a whole, they are individual in nature because the question must, practically, be fielded by one student. That being said, there is often an audience to the assessment… and that audience can be informed from the teacher-with-single-student transaction that they witness.
The formative assessment is the most flexible assessment in the summative-interim-formative trio. The questions can vary depending on what prior knowledge is being probed, what concepts are being covered, what subject matter is being discussed, or what thinking process is being dissected.
There is no script the teacher is forced to utter and no path the teacher is demanded to follow.
Written By: Eric Lubbers