Mathematics Inside The Black Box Pdf

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

October 1998: Black

Kappan Home

PDK Home

Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom

Assessment

By Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam

Firm evidence shows that formative assessment is an essential component of classroom work and that

its development can raise standards of achievement, Mr. Black and Mr. Wiliam point out. Indeed,

they know of no other way of raising standards for which such a strong prima facie case can be made.

RAISING the standards of learning that are achieved through schooling is an important national

priority. In recent years, governments throughout the world have been more and more vigorous in

making changes in pursuit of this aim. National, state, and district standards; target setting; enhanced

programs for the external testing of students' performance; surveys such as NAEP (National Assessment

of Educational Progress) and TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study); initiatives to

improve school planning and management; and more frequent and thorough inspection are all means

toward the same end. But the sum of all these reforms has not added up to an effective policy because

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (1 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

something is missing.

Learning is driven by what teachers and pupils do in classrooms. Teachers have to manage complicated

and demanding situations, channeling the personal, emotional, and social pressures of a group of 30 or

more youngsters in order to help them learn immediately and become better learners in the future.

Standards can be raised only if teachers can tackle this task more effectively. What is missing from the

efforts alluded to above is any direct help with this task. This fact was recognized in the TIMSS video

study: "A focus on standards and accountability that ignores the processes of teaching and learning in

classrooms will not provide the direction that teachers need in their quest to improve."1

In terms of systems engineering, present policies in the U.S. and in many other countries seem to treat

the classroom as a black box. Certain inputs from the outside -- pupils, teachers, other resources,

management rules and requirements, parental anxieties, standards, tests with high stakes, and so on -- are

fed into the box. Some outputs are supposed to follow: pupils who are more knowledgeable and

competent, better test results, teachers who are reasonably satisfied, and so on. But what is happening

inside the box? How can anyone be sure that a particular set of new inputs will produce better outputs if

we don't at least study what happens inside? And why is it that most of the reform initiatives mentioned

in the first paragraph are not aimed at giving direct help and support to the work of teachers in

classrooms?

The answer usually given is that it is up to teachers: they have to make the inside work better. This

answer is not good enough, for two reasons. First, it is at least possible that some changes in the inputs

may be counterproductive and make it harder for teachers to raise standards. Second, it seems strange,

even unfair, to leave the most difficult piece of the standards-raising puzzle entirely to teachers. If there

are ways in which policy makers and others can give direct help and support to the everyday classroom

task of achieving better learning, then surely these ways ought to be pursued vigorously.

This article is about the inside of the black box. We focus on one aspect of teaching: formative

assessment. But we will show that this feature is at the heart of effective teaching.

The Argument

We start from the self-evident proposition that teaching and learning must be interactive. Teachers need

to know about their pupils' progress and difficulties with learning so that they can adapt their own work

to meet pupils' needs -- needs that are often unpredictable and that vary from one pupil to another.

Teachers can find out what they need to know in a variety of ways, including observation and discussion

in the classroom and the reading of pupils' written work.

We use the general term assessment to refer to all those activities undertaken by teachers -- and by their

students in assessing themselves -- that provide information to be used as feedback to modify teaching

and learning activities. Such assessment becomes formative assessment when the evidence is actually

used to adapt the teaching to meet student needs.2

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (2 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

There is nothing new about any of this. All teachers make assessments in every class they teach. But

there are three important questions about this process that we seek to answer:

● Is there evidence that improving formative assessment raises standards?

● Is there evidence that there is room for improvement?

● Is there evidence about how to improve formative assessment?

In setting out to answer these questions, we have conducted an extensive survey of the research

literature. We have checked through many books and through the past nine years' worth of issues of

more than 160 journals, and we have studied earlier reviews of research. This process yielded about 580

articles or chapters to study. We prepared a lengthy review, using material from 250 of these sources,

that has been published in a special issue of the journal Assessment in Education, together with

comments on our work by leading educational experts from Australia, Switzerland, Hong Kong,

Lesotho, and the U.S.3

The conclusion we have reached from our research review is that the answer to each of the three

questions above is clearly yes. In the three main sections below, we outline the nature and force of the

evidence that justifies this conclusion. However, because we are presenting a summary here, our text

will appear strong on assertions and weak on the details of their justification. We maintain that these

assertions are backed by evidence and that this backing is set out in full detail in the lengthy review on

which this article is founded.

We believe that the three sections below establish a strong case that governments, their agencies, school

authorities, and the teaching profession should study very carefully whether they are seriously interested

in raising standards in education. However, we also acknowledge widespread evidence that

fundamental change in education can be achieved only slowly -- through programs of professional

development that build on existing good practice. Thus we do not conclude that formative assessment is

yet another "magic bullet" for education. The issues involved are too complex and too closely linked to

both the difficulties of classroom practice and the beliefs that drive public policy. In a final section, we

confront this complexity and try to sketch out a strategy for acting on our evidence.

Does Improving Formative Assessment Raise Standards?

A research review published in 1986, concentrating primarily on classroom assessment work for

children with mild handicaps, surveyed a large number of innovations, from which 23 were selected.4

Those chosen satisfied the condition that quantitative evidence of learning gains was obtained, both for

those involved in the innovation and for a similar group not so involved. Since then, many more papers

have been published describing similarly careful quantitative experiments. Our own review has selected

at least 20 more studies. (The number depends on how rigorous a set of selection criteria are applied.)

All these studies show that innovations that include strengthening the practice of formative assessment

produce significant and often substantial learning gains. These studies range over age groups from 5-

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (3 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

year-olds to university undergraduates, across several school subjects, and over several countries.

For research purposes, learning gains of this type are measured by comparing the average improvements

in the test scores of pupils involved in an innovation with the range of scores that are found for typical

groups of pupils on these same tests. The ratio of the former divided by the latter is known as the effect

size. Typical effect sizes of the formative assessment experiments were between 0.4 and 0.7. These

effect sizes are larger than most of those found for educational interventions. The following examples

illustrate some practical consequences of such large gains.

● An effect size of 0.4 would mean that the average pupil involved in an innovation would record

the same achievement as a pupil in the top 35% of those not so involved.

● An effect size gain of 0.7 in the recent international comparative studies in mathematics5 would

have raised the score of a nation in the middle of the pack of 41 countries (e.g., the U.S.) to one

of the top five.

Many of these studies arrive at another important conclusion: that improved formative assessment helps

low achievers more than other students and so reduces the range of achievement while raising

achievement overall. A notable recent example is a study devoted entirely to low-achieving students and

students with learning disabilities, which shows that frequent assessment feedback helps both groups

enhance their learning.6 Any gains for such pupils could be particularly important. Furthermore, pupils

who come to see themselves as unable to learn usually cease to take school seriously. Many become

disruptive; others resort to truancy. Such young people are likely to be alienated from society and to

become the sources and the victims of serious social problems.

Thus it seems clear that very significant learning gains lie within our grasp. The fact that such gains have

been achieved by a variety of methods that have, as a common feature, enhanced formative assessment

suggests that this feature accounts, at least in part, for the successes. However, it does not follow that it

would be an easy matter to achieve such gains on a wide scale in normal classrooms. Many of the

reports we have studied raise a number of other issues.

● All such work involves new ways to enhance feedback between those taught and the teacher,

ways that will require significant changes in classroom practice.

● Underlying the various approaches are assumptions about what makes for effective learning -- in

particular the assumption that students have to be actively involved.

● For assessment to function formatively, the results have to be used to adjust teaching and

learning; thus a significant aspect of any program will be the ways in which teachers make these

adjustments.

● The ways in which assessment can affect the motivation and self-esteem of pupils and the

benefits of engaging pupils in self-assessment deserve careful attention.

Is There Room for Improvement?

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (4 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

A poverty of practice. There is a wealth of research evidence that the everyday practice of assessment

in classrooms is beset with problems and shortcomings, as the following selected quotations indicate.

● "Marking is usually conscientious but often fails to offer guidance on how work can be

improved. In a significant minority of cases, marking reinforces underachievement and

underexpectation by being too generous or unfocused. Information about pupil performance

received by the teacher is insufficiently used to inform subsequent work," according to a United

Kingdom inspection report on secondary schools.7

● "Why is the extent and nature of formative assessment in science so impoverished?" asked a

research study on secondary science teachers in the United Kingdom.8

● "Indeed they pay lip service to [formative assessment] but consider that its practice is unrealistic

in the present educational context," reported a study of Canadian secondary teachers.9

● "The assessment practices outlined above are not common, even though these kinds of

approaches are now widely promoted in the professional literature," according to a review of

assessment practices in U.S. schools.10

The most important difficulties with assessment revolve around three issues. The first issue is effective

learning.

● The tests used by teachers encourage rote and superficial learning even when teachers say they

want to develop understanding; many teachers seem unaware of the inconsistency.

● The questions and other methods teachers use are not shared with other teachers in the same

school, and they are not critically reviewed in relation to what they actually assess.

● For primary teachers particularly, there is a tendency to emphasize quantity and presentation of

work and to neglect its quality in relation to learning.

The second issue is negative impact.

● The giving of marks and the grading function are overemphasized, while the giving of useful

advice and the learning function are underemphasized.

● Approaches are used in which pupils are compared with one another, the prime purpose of which

seems to them to be competition rather than personal improvement; in consequence, assessment

feedback teaches low-achieving pupils that they lack "ability," causing them to come to believe

that they are not able to learn.

The third issue is the managerial role of assessments.

● Teachers' feedback to pupils seems to serve social and managerial functions, often at the expense

of the learning function.

● Teachers are often able to predict pupils' results on external tests because their own tests imitate

them, but at the same time teachers know too little about their pupils' learning needs.

● The collection of marks to fill in records is given higher priority than the analysis of pupils' work

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (5 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

to discern learning needs; furthermore, some teachers pay no attention to the assessment records

of their pupils' previous teachers.

Of course, not all these descriptions apply to all classrooms. Indeed, there are many schools and

classrooms to which they do not apply at all. Nevertheless, these general conclusions have been drawn

by researchers who have collected evidence -- through observation, interviews, and questionnaires --

from schools in several countries, including the U.S.

An empty commitment. The development of national assessment policy in England and Wales over the

last decade illustrates the obstacles that stand in the way of developing policy support for formative

assessment. The recommendations of a government task force in 198811 and all subsequent statements

of government policy have emphasized the importance of formative assessment by teachers. However,

the body charged with carrying out government policy on assessment had no strategy either to study or

to develop the formative assessment of teachers and did no more than devote a tiny fraction of its

resources to such work.12 Most of the available resources and most of the public and political attention

were focused on national external tests. While teachers' contributions to these "summative assessments"

have been given some formal status, hardly any attention has been paid to their contributions through

formative assessment. Moreover, the problems of the relationship between teachers' formative and

summative roles have received no attention.

It is possible that many of the commitments were stated in the belief that formative assessment was not

problematic, that it already happened all the time and needed no more than formal acknowledgment of

its existence. However, it is also clear that the political commitment to external testing in order to

promote competition had a central priority, while the commitment to formative assessment was

marginal. As researchers the world over have found, high-stakes external tests always dominate teaching

and assessment. However, they give teachers poor models for formative assessment because of their

limited function of providing overall summaries of achievement rather than helpful diagnosis. Given this

fact, it is hardly surprising that numerous research studies of the implementation of the education

reforms in the United Kingdom have found that formative assessment is "seriously in need of

development."13 With hindsight, we can see that the failure to perceive the need for substantial support

for formative assessment and to take responsibility for developing such support was a serious error.

In the U.S. similar pressures have been felt from political movements characterized by a distrust of

teachers and a belief that external testing will, on its own, improve learning. Such fractured relationships

between policy makers and the teaching profession are not inevitable -- indeed, many countries with

enviable educational achievements seem to manage well with policies that show greater respect and

support for teachers. While the situation in the U.S. is far more diverse than that in England and Wales,

the effects of high-stakes state-mandated testing are very similar to those of the external tests in the

United Kingdom. Moreover, the traditional reliance on multiple-choice testing in the U.S. -- not shared

in the United Kingdom -- has exacerbated the negative effects of such policies on the quality of

classroom learning.

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (6 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

How Can We Improve Formative Assessment?

The self-esteem of pupils. A report of schools in Switzerland states that "a number of pupils . . . are

content to 'get by.' . . . Every teacher who wants to practice formative assessment must reconstruct the

teaching contracts so as to counteract the habits acquired by his pupils."14

The ultimate user of assessment information that is elicited in order to improve learning is the pupil.

There are negative and positive aspects of this fact. The negative aspect is illustrated by the preceding

quotation. When the classroom culture focuses on rewards, "gold stars," grades, or class ranking, then

pupils look for ways to obtain the best marks rather than to improve their learning. One reported

consequence is that, when they have any choice, pupils avoid difficult tasks. They also spend time and

energy looking for clues to the "right answer." Indeed, many become reluctant to ask questions out of a

fear of failure. Pupils who encounter difficulties are led to believe that they lack ability, and this belief

leads them to attribute their difficulties to a defect in themselves about which they cannot do a great

deal. Thus they avoid investing effort in learning that can lead only to disappointment, and they try to

build up their self-esteem in other ways.

The positive aspect of students' being the primary users of the information gleaned from formative

assessments is that negative outcomes -- such as an obsessive focus on competition and the attendant

fear of failure on the part of low achievers -- are not inevitable. What is needed is a culture of success,

backed by a belief that all pupils can achieve. In this regard, formative assessment can be a powerful

weapon if it is communicated in the right way. While formative assessment can help all pupils, it yields

particularly good results with low achievers by concentrating on specific problems with their work and

giving them a clear understanding of what is wrong and how to put it right. Pupils can accept and work

with such messages, provided that they are not clouded by overtones about ability, competition, and

comparison with others. In summary, the message can be stated as follows: feedback to any pupil should

be about the particular qualities of his or her work, with advice on what he or she can do to improve,

and should avoid comparisons with other pupils.

Self-assessment by pupils. Many successful innovations have developed self- and peer-assessment by

pupils as ways of enhancing formative assessment, and such work has achieved some success with

pupils from age 5 upward. This link of formative assessment to self-assessment is not an accident;

indeed, it is inevitable.

To explain this last statement, we should first note that the main problem that those who are developing

self-assessments encounter is not a problem of reliability and trustworthiness. Pupils are generally

honest and reliable in assessing both themselves and one another; they can even be too hard on

themselves. The main problem is that pupils can assess themselves only when they have a sufficiently

clear picture of the targets that their learning is meant to attain. Surprisingly, and sadly, many pupils do

not have such a picture, and they appear to have become accustomed to receiving classroom teaching as

an arbitrary sequence of exercises with no overarching rationale. To overcome this pattern of passive

reception requires hard and sustained work. When pupils do acquire such an overview, they then become

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (7 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

more committed and more effective as learners. Moreover, their own assessments become an object of

discussion with their teachers and with one another, and this discussion further promotes the reflection

on one's own thinking that is essential to good learning.

Thus self-assessment by pupils, far from being a luxury, is in fact an essential component of formative

assessment. When anyone is trying to learn, feedback about the effort has three elements: recognition of

the desired goal, evidence about present position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap

between the two.15 All three must be understood to some degree by anyone before he or she can take

action to improve learning.

Such an argument is consistent with more general ideas established by research into the way people

learn. New understandings are not simply swallowed and stored in isolation; they have to be assimilated

in relation to preexisting ideas. The new and the old may be inconsistent or even in conflict, and the

disparities must be resolved by thoughtful actions on the part of the learner. Realizing that there are new

goals for the learning is an essential part of this process of assimilation. Thus we conclude: if formative

assessment is to be productive, pupils should be trained in self-assessment so that they can understand

the main purposes of their learning and thereby grasp what they need to do to achieve.

The evolution of effective teaching. The research studies referred to above show very clearly that

effective programs of formative assessment involve far more than the addition of a few observations and

tests to an existing program. They require careful scrutiny of all the main components of a teaching plan.

Indeed, it is clear that instruction and formative assessment are indivisible.

To begin at the beginning, the choice of tasks for classroom work and homework is important. Tasks

have to be justified in terms of the learning aims that they serve, and they can work well only if

opportunities for pupils to communicate their evolving understanding are built into the planning.

Discussion, observation of activities, and marking of written work can all be used to provide those

opportunities, but it is then important to look at or listen carefully to the talk, the writing, and the actions

through which pupils develop and display the state of their understanding. Thus we maintain that

opportunities for pupils to express their understanding should be designed into any piece of teaching,

for this will initiate the interaction through which formative assessment aids learning.

Discussions in which pupils are led to talk about their understanding in their own ways are important

aids to increasing knowledge and improving understanding. Dialogue with the teacher provides the

opportunity for the teacher to respond to and reorient a pupil's thinking. However, there are clearly

recorded examples of such discussions in which teachers have, quite unconsciously, responded in ways

that would inhibit the future learning of a pupil. What the examples have in common is that the teacher

is looking for a particular response and lacks the flexibility or the confidence to deal with the

unexpected. So the teacher tries to direct the pupil toward giving the expected answer. In manipulating

the dialogue in this way, the teacher seals off any unusual, often thoughtful but unorthodox, attempts by

pupils to work out their own answers. Over time the pupils get the message: they are not required to

think out their own answers. The object of the exercise is to work out -- or guess -- what answer the

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (8 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

teacher expects to see or hear.

A particular feature of the talk between teacher and pupils is the asking of questions by the teacher. This

natural and direct way of checking on learning is often unproductive. One common problem is that,

following a question, teachers do not wait long enough to allow pupils to think out their answers. When

a teacher answers his or her own question after only two or three seconds and when a minute of silence

is not tolerable, there is no possibility that a pupil can think out what to say.

There are then two consequences. One is that, because the only questions that can produce answers in

such a short time are questions of fact, these predominate. The other is that pupils don't even try to think

out a response. Because they know that the answer, followed by another question, will come along in a

few seconds, there is no point in trying. It is also generally the case that only a few pupils in a class

answer the teacher's questions. The rest then leave it to these few, knowing that they cannot respond as

quickly and being unwilling to risk making mistakes in public. So the teacher, by lowering the level of

questions and by accepting answers from a few, can keep the lesson going but is actually out of touch

with the understanding of most of the class. The question/answer dialogue becomes a ritual, one in

which thoughtful involvement suffers.

There are several ways to break this particular cycle. They involve giving pupils time to respond; asking

them to discuss their thinking in pairs or in small groups, so that a respondent is speaking on behalf of

others; giving pupils a choice between different possible answers and asking them to vote on the

options; asking all of them to write down an answer and then reading out a selected few; and so on.

What is essential is that any dialogue should evoke thoughtful reflection in which all pupils can be

encouraged to take part, for only then can the formative process start to work. In short, the dialogue

between pupils and a teacher should be thoughtful, reflective, focused to evoke and explore

understanding, and conducted so that all pupils have an opportunity to think and to express their ideas.

Tests given in class and tests and other exercises assigned for homework are also important means of

promoting feedback. A good test can be an occasion for learning. It is better to have frequent short tests

than infrequent long ones. Any new learning should first be tested within about a week of a first

encounter, but more frequent tests are counterproductive. The quality of the test items -- that is, their

relevance to the main learning aims and their clear communication to the pupil -- requires scrutiny as

well. Good questions are hard to generate, and teachers should collaborate and draw on outside sources

to collect such questions.

Given questions of good quality, it is essential to ensure the quality of the feedback. Research studies

have shown that, if pupils are given only marks or grades, they do not benefit from the feedback. The

worst scenario is one in which some pupils who get low marks this time also got low marks last time and

come to expect to get low marks next time. This cycle of repeated failure becomes part of a shared belief

between such students and their teacher. Feedback has been shown to improve learning when it gives

each pupil specific guidance on strengths and weaknesses, preferably without any overall marks. Thus

the way in which test results are reported to pupils so that they can identify their own strengths and

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (9 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

weaknesses is critical. Pupils must be given the means and opportunities to work with evidence of their

difficulties. For formative purposes, a test at the end of a unit or teaching module is pointless; it is too

late to work with the results. We conclude that the feedback on tests, seatwork, and homework should

give each pupil guidance on how to improve, and each pupil must be given help and an opportunity to

work on the improvement.

All these points make clear that there is no one simple way to improve formative assessment. What is

common to them is that a teacher's approach should start by being realistic and confronting the question

"Do I really know enough about the understanding of my pupils to be able to help each of them?"

Much of the work teachers must do to make good use of formative assessment can give rise to

difficulties. Some pupils will resist attempts to change accustomed routines, for any such change is

uncomfortable, and emphasis on the challenge to think for yourself (and not just to work harder) can be

threatening to many. Pupils cannot be expected to believe in the value of changes for their learning

before they have experienced the benefits of such changes. Moreover, many of the initiatives that are

needed take more class time, particularly when a central purpose is to change the outlook on learning

and the working methods of pupils. Thus teachers have to take risks in the belief that such investment of

time will yield rewards in the future, while "delivery" and "coverage" with poor understanding are

pointless and can even be harmful.

Teachers must deal with two basic issues that are the source of many of the problems associated with

changing to a system of formative assessment. The first is the nature of each teacher's beliefs about

learning. If the teacher assumes that knowledge is to be transmitted and learned, that understanding will

develop later, and that clarity of exposition accompanied by rewards for patient reception are the

essentials of good teaching, then formative assessment is hardly necessary. However, most teachers

accept the wealth of evidence that this transmission model does not work, even when judged by its own

criteria, and so are willing to make a commitment to teaching through interaction. Formative assessment

is an essential component of such instruction. We do not mean to imply that individualized, one-on-one

teaching is the only solution; rather we mean that what is needed is a classroom culture of questioning

and deep thinking, in which pupils learn from shared discussions with teachers and peers. What emerges

very clearly here is the indivisibility of instruction and formative assessment practices.

The other issue that can create problems for teachers who wish to adopt an interactive model of teaching

and learning relates to the beliefs teachers hold about the potential of all their pupils for learning. To

sharpen the contrast by overstating it, there is on the one hand the "fixed I.Q." view -- a belief that each

pupil has a fixed, inherited intelligence that cannot be altered much by schooling. On the other hand,

there is the "untapped potential" view -- a belief that starts from the assumption that so-called ability is a

complex of skills that can be learned. Here, we argue for the underlying belief that all pupils can learn

more effectively if one can clear away, by sensitive handling, the obstacles to learning, be they cognitive

failures never diagnosed or damage to personal confidence or a combination of the two. Clearly the truth

lies between these two extremes, but the evidence is that ways of managing formative assessment that

work with the assumptions of "untapped potential" do help all pupils to learn and can give particular

help to those who have previously struggled.

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (10 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

Policy and Practice

Changing the policy perspective. The assumptions that drive national and state policies for assessment

have to be called into question. The promotion of testing as an important component for establishing a

competitive market in education can be very harmful. The more recent shifting of emphasis toward

setting targets for all, with assessment providing a touchstone to help check pupils' attainments, is a

more mature position. However, we would argue that there is a need now to move further, to focus on

the inside of the "black box" and so to explore the potential of assessment to raise standards directly as

an integral part of each pupil's learning work.

It follows from this view that several changes are needed. First, policy ought to start with a recognition

that the prime locus for raising standards is the classroom, so that the overarching priority has to be the

promotion and support of change within the classroom. Attempts to raise standards by reforming the

inputs to and measuring the outputs from the black box of the classroom can be helpful, but they are not

adequate on their own. Indeed, their helpfulness can be judged only in light of their effects in classrooms.

The evidence we have presented here establishes that a clearly productive way to start implementing a

classroom-focused policy would be to improve formative assessment. This same evidence also

establishes that in doing so we would not be concentrating on some minor aspect of the business of

teaching and learning. Rather, we would be concentrating on several essential elements: the quality of

teacher/pupil interactions, the stimulus and help for pupils to take active responsibility for their own

learning, the particular help needed to move pupils out of the trap of "low achievement," and the

development of the habits necessary for all students to become lifelong learners. Improvements in

formative assessment, which are within the reach of all teachers, can contribute substantially to raising

standards in all these ways.

Four steps to implementation. If we accept the argument outlined above, what needs to be done? The

proposals outlined below do not follow directly from our analysis of assessment research. They are

consistent with its main findings, but they also call on more general sources for guidance.16

At one extreme, one might call for more research to find out how best to carry out such work; at the

other, one might call for an immediate and large-scale program, with new guidelines that all teachers

should put into practice. Neither of these alternatives is sensible: while the first is unnecessary because

enough is known from the results of research, the second would be unjustified because not enough is

known about classroom practicalities in the context of any one country's schools.

Thus the improvement of formative assessment cannot be a simple matter. There is no quick fix that can

alter existing practice by promising rapid rewards. On the contrary, if the substantial rewards promised

by the research evidence are to be secured, each teacher must find his or her own ways of incorporating

the lessons and ideas set out above into his or her own patterns of classroom work and into the cultural

norms and expectations of a particular school community.17 This process is a relatively slow one and

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (11 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

takes place through sustained programs of professional development and support. This fact does not

weaken the message here; indeed, it should be seen as a sign of its authenticity, for lasting and

fundamental improvements in teaching and learning must take place in this way. A recent international

study of innovation and change in education, encompassing 23 projects in 13 member countries of the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has arrived at exactly the same conclusion

with regard to effective policies for change.18 Such arguments lead us to propose a four-point scheme

for teacher development.

1. Learning from development. Teachers will not take up ideas that sound attractive, no matter how

extensive the research base, if the ideas are presented as general principles that leave the task of

translating them into everyday practice entirely up to the teachers. Their classroom lives are too busy

and too fragile for all but an outstanding few to undertake such work. What teachers need is a variety of

living examples of implementation, as practiced by teachers with whom they can identify and from

whom they can derive the confidence that they can do better. They need to see examples of what doing

better means in practice.

So changing teachers' practice cannot begin with an extensive program of training for all; that could be

justified only if it could be claimed that we have enough "trainers" who know what to do, which is

certainly not the case. The essential first step is to set up a small number of local groups of schools --

some primary, some secondary, some inner-city, some from outer suburbs, some rural -- with each

school committed both to a school-based development of formative assessment and to collaboration with

other schools in its local group. In such a process, the teachers in their classrooms will be working out

the answers to many of the practical questions that the evidence presented here cannot answer. They will

be reformulating the issues, perhaps in relation to fundamental insights and certainly in terms that make

sense to their peers in other classrooms. It is also essential to carry out such development in a range of

subject areas, for the research in mathematics education is significantly different from that in language,

which is different again from that in the creative arts.

The schools involved would need extra support in order to give their teachers time to plan the initiative

in light of existing evidence, to reflect on their experience as it develops, and to offer advice about

training others in the future. In addition, there would be a need for external evaluators to help the

teachers with their development work and to collect evidence of its effectiveness. Video studies of

classroom work would be essential for disseminating findings to others.

2. Dissemination. This dimension of the implementation would be in low gear at the outset -- offering

schools no more than general encouragement and explanation of some of the relevant evidence that they

might consider in light of their existing practices. Dissemination efforts would become more active as

results and resources became available from the development program. Then strategies for wider

dissemination -- for example, earmarking funds for inservice training programs -- would have to be

pursued.

We must emphasize that this process will inevitably be a slow one. To repeat what we said above, if the

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (12 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

substantial rewards promised by the evidence are to be secured, each teacher must find his or her own

ways of incorporating the lessons and ideas that are set out above into his or her own patterns of

classroom work. Even with optimum training and support, such a process will take time.

3. Reducing obstacles. All features in the education system that actually obstruct the development of

effective formative assessment should be examined to see how their negative effects can be reduced.

Consider the conclusions from a study of teachers of English in U.S. secondary schools.

Most of the teachers in this study were caught in conflicts among belief systems and

institutional structures, agendas, and values. The point of friction among these conflicts

was assessment, which was associated with very powerful feelings of being overwhelmed,

and of insecurity, guilt, frustration, and anger. . . . This study suggests that assessment, as

it occurs in schools, is far from a merely technical problem. Rather, it is deeply social and

personal.19

The chief negative influence here is that of short external tests. Such tests can dominate teachers' work,

and, insofar as they encourage drilling to produce right answers to short, out-of-context questions, they

can lead teachers to act against their own better judgment about the best ways to develop the learning of

their pupils. This is not to argue that all such tests are unhelpful. Indeed, they have an important role to

play in securing public confidence in the accountability of schools. For the immediate future, what is

needed in any development program for formative assessment is to study the interactions between these

external tests and formative assessments to see how the models of assessment that external tests can

provide could be made more helpful.

All teachers have to undertake some summative assessment. They must report to parents and produce

end-of-year reports as classes are due to move on to new teachers. However, the task of assessing pupils

summatively for external purposes is clearly different from the task of assessing ongoing work to

monitor and improve progress. Some argue that these two roles are so different that they should be kept

apart. We do not see how this can be done, given that teachers must have some share of responsibility

for the former and must take the leading responsibility for the latter.20 However, teachers clearly face

difficult problems in reconciling their formative and summative roles, and confusion in teachers' minds

between these roles can impede the improvement of practice.

The arguments here could be taken much further to make the case that teachers should play a far greater

role in contributing to summative assessments for accountability. One strong reason for giving teachers a

greater role is that they have access to the performance of their pupils in a variety of contexts and over

extended periods of time.

This is an important advantage because sampling pupils' achievement by means of short exercises taken

under the conditions of formal testing is fraught with dangers. It is now clear that performance in any

task varies with the context in which it is presented. Thus some pupils who seem incompetent in tackling

a problem under test conditions can look quite different in the more realistic conditions of an everyday

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (13 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

encounter with an equivalent problem. Indeed, the conditions under which formal tests are taken

threaten validity because they are quite unlike those of everyday performance. An outstanding example

here is that collaborative work is very important in everyday life but is forbidden by current norms of

formal testing.21 These points open up wider arguments about assessment systems as a whole --

arguments that are beyond the scope of this article.

4. Research. It is not difficult to set out a list of questions that would justify further research in this area.

Although there are many and varied reports of successful innovations, they generally fail to give clear

accounts of one or another of the important details. For example, they are often silent about the actual

classroom methods used, the motivation and experience of the teachers, the nature of the tests used as

measures of success, or the outlooks and expectations of the pupils involved.

However, while there is ample justification for proceeding with carefully formulated projects, we do not

suggest that everyone else should wait for their conclusions. Enough is known to provide a basis for

active development work, and some of the most important questions can be answered only through a

program of practical implementation.

Directions for future research could include a study of the ways in which teachers understand and deal

with the relationship between their formative and summative roles or a comparative study of the

predictive validity of teachers' summative assessments versus external test results. Many more questions

could be formulated, and it is important for future development that some of these problems be tackled

by basic research. At the same time, experienced researchers would also have a vital role to play in the

evaluation of the development programs we have proposed.

Are We Serious About Raising Standards?

The findings summarized above and the program we have outlined have implications for a variety of

responsible agencies. However, it is the responsibility of governments to take the lead. It would be

premature and out of order for us to try to consider the relative roles in such an effort, although success

would clearly depend on cooperation among government agencies, academic researchers, and school-

based educators.

The main plank of our argument is that standards can be raised only by changes that are put into direct

effect by teachers and pupils in classrooms. There is a body of firm evidence that formative assessment

is an essential component of classroom work and that its development can raise standards of

achievement. We know of no other way of raising standards for which such a strong prima facie case

can be made. Our plea is that national and state policy makers will grasp this opportunity and take the

lead in this direction.

1. James W. Stigler and James Hiebert, "Understanding and Improving Classroom Mathematics

Instruction: An Overview of the TIMSS Video Study," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1997, pp. 19-20.

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (14 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

2. There is no internationally agreed-upon term here. "Classroom evaluation," "classroom assessment,"

"internal assessment," "instructional assessment," and "student assessment" have been used by different

authors, and some of these terms have different meanings in different texts.

3. Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam, "Assessment and Classroom Learning," Assessment in Education,

March 1998, pp. 7-74.

4. Lynn S. Fuchs and Douglas Fuchs, "Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis,"

Exceptional Children, vol. 53, 1986, pp. 199-208.

5. See Albert E. Beaton et al., Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years (Boston: Boston

College, 1996).

6. Lynn S. Fuchs et al., "Effects of Task-Focused Goals on Low-Achieving Students with and Without

Learning Disabilities," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 34, 1997, pp. 513-43.

7. OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education), Subjects and Standards: Issues for School Development

Arising from OFSTED Inspection Findings 1994-5: Key Stages 3 and 4 and Post-16 (London: Her

Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996), p. 40.

8. Nicholas Daws and Birendra Singh, "Formative Assessment: To What Extent Is Its Potential to

Enhance Pupils' Science Being Realized?," School Science Review, vol. 77, 1996, p. 99.

9. Clement Dassa, Jesús Vazquez-Abad, and Djavid Ajar, "Formative Assessment in a Classroom

Setting: From Practice to Computer Innovations," Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 39,

1993, p. 116.

10. D. Monty Neill, "Transforming Student Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1997, pp. 35-36.

11. Task Group on Assessment and Testing: A Report (London: Department of Education and Science

and the Welsh Office, 1988).

12. Richard Daugherty, National Curriculum Assessment: A Review of Policy, 1987-1994 (London:

Falmer Press, 1995).

13. Terry A. Russell, Anne Qualter, and Linda McGuigan, "Reflections on the Implementation of

National Curriculum Science Policy for the 5-14 Age Range: Findings and Interpretations from a

National Evaluation Study in England," International Journal of Science Education, vol. 17, 1995, pp.

481-92.

14. Phillipe Perrenoud, "Towards a Pragmatic Approach to Formative Evaluation," in Penelope Weston,

ed., Assessment of Pupils' Achievement: Motivation and School Success (Amsterdam: Swets and

Zeitlinger, 1991), p. 92.

15. D. Royce Sadler, "Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems," Instructional

Science, vol. 18, 1989, pp. 119-44.

16. Paul J. Black and J. Myron Atkin, Changing the Subject: Innovations in Science, Mathematics, and

Technology Education (London: Routledge for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development, 1996); and Michael G. Fullan, with Suzanne Stiegelbauer, The New Meaning of

Educational Change (London: Cassell, 1991).

17. See Stigler and Hiebert, pp. 19-20.

18. Black and Atkin, op. cit.

19. Peter Johnston et al., "Assessment of Teaching and Learning in Literature-Based Classrooms,"

Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 11, 1995, p. 359.

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (15 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

October 1998: Black

20. Dylan Wiliam and Paul Black, "Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative

and Summative Functions of Assessment," British Educational Research Journal, vol. 22, 1996, pp. 537-

48.

21. These points are developed in some detail in Sam Wineburg, "T. S. Eliot, Collaboration, and the

Quandaries of Assessment in a Rapidly Changing World," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1997, pp. 59-

65.

PAUL BLACK is professor emeritus in the School of Education, King's College, London, where DYLAN

WILIAM is head of school and professor of educational assessment.

PDK Home | Site Map

Kappan Professional Journal

Last updated 11 November 1998

URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm (16 of 16)1/18/2006 10:18:23 AM

... A critical review of existing literature on the use of formative assessments provides empirical evidence that the use of formative assessments results in improved educational outcomes (Dunn and Mulvenon 2009). Formative assessment has been defined as "activities undertaken by teachers and by their students in assessing themselves that provide information to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities" (Black and Wiliam 2010). Formative assessment therefore encompasses a host of tools that provide feedback to teachers and students to help students learn more effectively (Dixson and Worrell 2016). ...

J.M. Ontong

The concept of practice makes perfect is often embedded in the decision to provide students with low-stakes formative and summative assessments with the intention of providing practice for higher-stakes summative assessments. The assumption is that participation in low-stakes formative and summative assessments will result in higher grades obtained in subsequent higher-stakes summative assessments. Using a quantitative approach, this study examined whether participation in low-stakes formative and summative assessments resulted in higher marks obtained in higher-stakes summative assessments. The findings of the study suggest that although in the majority of cases the participation of students in low-stakes formative or summative assessments resulted in higher marks obtained in subsequent summative assessments, an important planning consideration is the scope of the formative and summative assessments. The study found that when a low-stakes formative assessment does not cover the majority of the scope of the higher-stakes summative assessment, firstly, the participation percentage decreases significantly in comparison to other assessments that cover a larger portion of the scope of the following assessment. Secondly, the findings suggest that having a small, perhaps trivial, stake in terms of an assessment's contribution to final mark versus no stake has a significant impact on the students' participation levels, as well as the potential value added from participation in such assessments for future assessments. The findings also show that the quantity of low-stakes assessments does not necessarily need to be increased to increase the effectiveness of these interventions; instead, particular focus should be placed on ensuring that formative assessments cover the scope sufficiently of higher-stakes summative assessments if the intended purpose of these is to assist in improving marks in higher-stakes assessments. The findings suggest that the design of low-stakes formative and summative assessments are integral into the potential contribution these have on student performance in subsequent higher-stakes summative assessments.

... Bedömningens formativa funktion är en fråga som under de senaste tio åren fått särskild uppmärksamhet. Den forskningsöversikt som Black och Wiliam publicerade (1998a) och det efterföljande utvecklingsarbete med lärare på ett flertal skolor som den ledde till (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall & Wiliam, 2004;Black & Wiliam, 1998b; har internationellt rönt stort intresse. ...

Inger E E Eriksson

Denna rapport utgör en sammanfattande slutrapport1 för det av Vetenskapsrådet finansierade forskningsprojektet Kemitexter som redskap för naturvetenskapligt lärande – en komparativ studie av undervisningspraktiker i svenska och finlandssvenska klassrum. Medverkande, Inger Eriksson (red), Astrid Berg, Kristina Danielsson, Ulla Ekvall, Viveca Lindberg, Ragnhild Löfgren & Ylva Ståhle Forskningsprojektet tog sin övergripande utgångspunkt i de uppmärksammade och signifikanta skillnader i naturvetenskapliga prestationer mellan svenska och finska elever som rapporteras från de återkommande PISA-mätningarna. I PISA 2003 placerade sig Sverige på 15:e plats, medan Finland (jämte Japan, Korea och Hongkong) uppvisade det bästa resultatet i NO-ämnen. De finska, men också de finlandssvenska, elevernas prestationer var signifikant bättre än de svenska elevernas. I PISAmätningen 2006 förstärktes skillnaderna i naturvetenskapliga prestationer mellan Sverige och Finland något (Arinen & Karjalainen, 2007; OECD, 2007). I PISA-mätningen 2009 framkommer en liknande bild (OECD, 2010).2 Att Finland som enda nordiskt land uppvisar toppresultat i bl.a. naturvetenskap (sett till det som testas i PISA) väcker flera frågor eftersom de nordiska grannländernas skolsystem är rätt likartade i många avseenden. Även om länderna har utvecklats skilt från varandra finns det kulturella och organisatoriska likheter, som t.ex. en sammanhållen grundskola som ska vara tillgängliga för alla oavsett socioekonomiska förhållanden eller geografiska aspekter. I alla länder finns nationella läroplaner och kursplaner som till stora delar har likartade mål. Ett annat exempel på likheter speciellt mellan Sverige och Finland utgörs av att elever på grundskolans högre årskurser vanligen undervisas av ämneslärare. De finlandssvenska skolorna har också en annan stark koppling till svensk skola bl.a. genom att svenska läromedel under många år har varit vanligt förekommande i finlandssvenska klassrum (Hansén, 1985). Även på nationell nivå har, enligt utbildningsministeriet,3 svensk NO-didaktikisk forskning haft stort inflytande på utformningen av finska läromedel och rekommendationer för undervisningens organisering. Det finns således skäl att anta att svenska elever och svensktalande elever i Finland, framför allt i relation till de läromedel som används, arbetar med ett likartat innehåll. Trots detta är elevernas prestationer i PISA-mätningar så olika. En fråga som reser sig handlar om vad som kan förklara dessa skillnader.

... Formative assessment consists of five key strategies: peer-and self-assessment, rich questioning, feedback, and the assessment dialogue between learners and teachers in relation to clarifying, sharing, and understanding learning intentions and success criteria (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Both self-and peerassessments can be well integrated into whole-classroom formats and are student-centered assessment forms (Sluijsmans et al., 2013;McMillan et al., 2017). ...

The present study examined the long-term impact of a formative assessment intervention in primary education on the development of students' levels of self-regulation, motivation, and self-efficacy after their transition to secondary education. Participants in the study included 695 Dutch sixth graders from 17 schools. A longitudinal design with measurements on three time points was adopted. The first part of the study, consisting of a pretest, the intervention, and posttest, was conducted during the students' last 7 months in primary education using two experimental conditions, with peer- and self-assessment, and a control condition. A follow-up took place 10 weeks later, after the summer break and at the commencement of the participants' secondary education. Longitudinal multilevel analyses showed that the development of self-regulation and motivation is significantly positively associated with the formative self- and peer-assessment interventions and continues after the transition to secondary education. Results are discussed with regard to theoretical and practical consequences.

Jennifer Anne Hawkins

This chapter discusses narrative and theoretical evidence from teachers commenting on current educational debates. Practical visions are explored for national education systems, comparing and contrasting the United Kingdom and Finland. The effects on educational communities of political and educational visions and decisions are discussed and some differences between learning purposes and government purposes are noted. Philosophical visions, teaching values and principles for management and curricula planning are considered looking at historical examples. Now we understand neuroplasticity exists; teachers can engage in the process of explaining back to science how this works for learning. Culture and language acquisition research and its importance and influence on learning are explained. There is a discussion of assessment planning and changes in attitudes to intelligence. Relevant and current backup references are included in the references list for topics discussed in this chapter.

Jennifer Anne Hawkins

Evidence is considered about how teachers, coaches and tutors have developed their own and learners' neuroplasticity and are now in a position to research and evidence their own success in those terms. Professional problem-solving in education settings is considered and the feasibility and benefits of different teaching approaches and perspectives, teacher autonomy and collaborative research. This includes insights gained by teachers doing their own psychological research into their work and problems faced in managing and improving teaching. Links to these evidence the text throughout. Teachers, learners and parents own opinions and perspectives are considered in order to open up a debate about advancing understanding in education. There is a consideration of how student well-being has been affected by 'every child matters' legislation, parental perspectives and involvement and the teaching assessment of all kinds of children to achieve their personal best. Relevant and current backup data references are included in the reference list for topics discussed in this chapter.

Declaration of interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Authors' notes: Susan Drake (sdrake@brocku.ca) is a Full Professor at Brock University. Her primary research interest is integrated curriculum and its connections to student academic achievement and motivation. Joanne Reid (jreid@brocku.ca) worked for many years for the Education Quality and Accountability Office in Ontario. Upon her retirement, she has worked as a part-time instructor at Brock University, teaching courses on assessment and evaluation. Michael Savage (msavage@brocku.ca) is an Associate Professor at Brock University and a licensed clinical psychologist in the province of Ontario. His research interests include mental health and wellness in educational settings and positive education.

Anita Muho
Klodiana Leka

The goal of this study is to find out what students think about using a portfolio as a motivator tool in studying English as a foreign language. As they include both students' and teachers' viewpoints on the learning process, portfolios are viewed as potential assessment tools. This study made use of qualitative methods of research. We have used interviews, which was conducted with 70 students, in four high schools in Durres, Albania. Students' perceptions of utilizing portfolios as an assessment tool revealed that portfolios help students be more autonomous, promote critical thinking, and increase motivation. Portfolio is an effective assessment approach since it encourages students to improve in maturity and independence rather of simply exposing their flaws. Portfolio helps them to be critical thinkers and independent consequently motivating them in learning English as a foreign language. This study will assist teachers in using portfolios as an assessment tool to encourage students to learn English as a foreign language. Received: 5 June 2021 / Accepted: 13 October 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021

Céline Girardet

DISPONIBLE EN OPEN ACCESS SUR La Revue LEeE (--> cliquez sur le DOI pour y accéder). ------------------------------ Ce texte vise à étudier les perceptions d'étudiant·es de leurs apprentissages en lien avec des sentiments/émotions lors de tâches de production et de réception de feedbacks entre pairs articulées dans un dispositif d'évaluation continue pour apprendre. Les résultats montrent que les tâches de production et de réception de feedbacks peuvent provoquer des émotions positives qui peuvent augmenter la motivation et l'implication dans les tâches, des émotions négatives désactivantes, qui peuvent diminuer la motivation et l'implication, et des émotions négatives activantes, qui peuvent favoriser l'apprentissage. En particulier, des émotions de doutes et de déstabilisation face à la maîtrise des contenus peuvent susciter un besoin d'apprendre, qui, combiné à une certaine pression évaluative et à un sentiment de responsabilité, semblent représenter un véritable tremplin pour la régulation des apprentissages. Cette étude donne à voir qu'il est particulièrement important de prendre en compte les dimensions affectives lors de l'implémentation d'évaluation entre pairs à l'université.

A makerspace is a place where people create artifacts while sharing ideas, equipment, and knowledge. In so doing, makers develop a range of knowledge and skills, such as creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, and self-regulation, to help them achieve their goals. These skills are broadly touted as key for learning and transferable across disciplines and making contexts. This article will first review the state of play in the literature to assess skill development. Secondly, itreports on the trial of an assessment framework developed through a literature review and implemented in a maker learning environment with an elementary school context. Finally, the article concludes with implications for practice.

Judy Woods

Abstract Purpose: Clinical nursing instructors must participate in continuous professional learning to maintain competency in nursing practice and in clinical instruction to prepare nursing students adequately for professional practice. The purpose of this research was to examine self-study as a method of continuous professional learning in nursing education. Procedures: A clinical instructor undertook to improve her clinical instruction with regard to five formative assessment strategies illustrated to promote student learning in regular classrooms. She translated and then implemented these strategies in nursing education. This self-study of instructional practice employed a reflective journal and systematic documentation of iterative processes of planning, action, reflection, and decision-making to examine the use of these strategies with nursing students. Findings: Self-study was demonstrated to be effective as an approach for continuous professional learning. Guidance for employing self-study to support a clinical instructor's professional learning outlines four steps: provoking ideas, describing implementation, reflecting on implementation and the consequences of practice, and making decisions for moving forward. It was found that self-study facilitated the transfer of knowledge about formative assessment from classroom education research to nursing education and supported knowledge transfer from one teaching discipline to another. Conclusions: Self-study was an effective method for personal and professional growth and development pertaining to formative assessment in nursing education. As a methodology, self-study facilitated knowledge transfer between professions. This is the first known self-study of pedagogical practice in clinical nursing education.

We examined effects of a task-focused goals treatment (TFG) in mathematics on low-achieving students with and without disabilities. We randomly assigned 40 classrooms to (a) TFG (which incorporated self-referenced assessment feedback, SRAF), (b) SRAF, and (c) contrast (neither TFG nor SRAF). We measured student perceptions of TFG, the difficulty and variety of learning topics, mathematics learning, effort, and intrinsic motivation. TFG students reported enjoying and benefiting from TFG, chose more challenging and a greater variety of learning topics, and increased their effort differentially. Increased effort, however, was associated with greater learning only for low achievers in TFG without learning disabilities, and we found no effects on intrinsic motivation.

The assessment process is characterised as a cycle involving elicitation of evidence, which when interpreted appropriately may lead to action, which in turn, can yield further evidence and so on. An assessment is defined as serving a formative function when it elicits evidence that yields construct‐referenced interpretations that form the basis for successful action in improving performance, whereas summative functions prioritise the consistency of meanings across contexts and individuals. Aspects of the interplay of meanings and consequences are explored for each of the three phases, and it is suggested that this interplay may be fruitful in distinguishing the two functions. Tensions between summative and formative functions of assessment are illustrated in the context of the National Curriculum, and although it is shown that such tensions will always exist, it is suggested that the separation of the elicitation of evidence from its interpretation can mitigate that tension.

The implementation of science as a mandatory National Curriculum subject in England is reviewed in the light of data emerging from a recent evaluation study involving the 5‐14 age range. The paper examines some disparities between policy and practice relating to the science content which teachers are required to teach and explores ideas about progression of pupil's understanding of that content. The nature of science as a core subject and the impact of the summative assessment regime are also considered. The necessity for interconnectivity between the curricular agenda, classroom practice and assessment structures is emphasized. This interrelatedness has so far been neglected but, it is argued, must be taken into account if current tensions in the system are to be resolved.

This study explores the ways teachers in "literature-based" language arts programs keep track of and make sense of children's literate development and of their own professional effectiveness in teaching children to read and write. Extensive interviews were conducted with 25 teachers in elementary schools with high levels of poverty. Transcripts were analyzed inductively. Most of the teachers in this study were caught in conflicts among belief systems, and institutional structures, agendas, and values. The point of friction among these conflicts was assessment, which was associated with very powerful feelings of being overwhelmed, and of insecurity, guilt, frustration, and anger. These teachers expressed difficulty in keeping track of and having the language to talk about children's literate development. They also described pressure from external accountability testing. They differed in their assessment strategies and in the language they used to describe students' literacy development. Those who worked in highly controlling situations were inclined to use blaming language and tended to provide global, negative descriptive assessments in impersonal language. Their assessments were likely to be based on a simple, linear notion of literacy. The less controlling the situation the less this was likely to occur. This study suggests that assessment, as it occurs in schools, is far from a merely technical problem. Rather, it is deeply social and personal.

James Stigler
James Hiebert

The videotape portion of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which captured "typical" mathematics instruction in Germany, the United States, and Japan, disclosed information about types of mathematics students encountered, teachers' role in developing concepts and lessons, and expectations for students. The Japanese approach to teacher development contrasts starkly with the U.S. approach, which lacks mechanisms to ensure gradual, continuous improvement. (13 references) (MLH)

This article is a review of the literature on classroom formative assessment. Several studies show firm evidence that innovations designed to strengthen the frequent feedback that students receive about their learning yield substantial learning gains. The perceptions of students and their role in self‐assessment are considered alongside analysis of the strategies used by teachers and the formative strategies incorporated in such systemic approaches as mastery learning. There follows a more detailed and theoretical analysis of the nature of feedback, which provides a basis for a discussion of the development of theoretical models for formative assessment and of the prospects for the improvement of practice.

Clément Dassa
Jesús Vázquez-Abad
Djavid Ajar

Presents a computerized assessment model based on educational diagnosis to illustrate the need to gather coherent data based on a psychopedagogical interpretation jointly established by researchers and teachers, to develop computerized systems enabling assessment to be individualized, and to establish testing methods that take pedagogical and institutional constraints into account. The system can be operated in the laboratory or in remedial teaching. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

D Royce Sadler

The theory of formative assessment outlined in this article is relevant to a broad spectrum of learning outcomes in a wide variety of subjects. Specifically, it applies wherever multiple criteria are used in making judgments about the quality of student responses. The theory has less relevance for outcomes in which student responses may be assessed simply as correct or incorrect. Feedback is defined in a particular way to highlight its function in formative assessment. This definition differs in several significant respects from that traditionally found in educational research. Three conditions for effective feedback are then identified and their implications discussed. A key premise is that for students to be able to improve, they must develop the capacity to monitor the quality of their own work during actual production. This in turn requires that students possess an appreciation of what high quality work is, that they have the evaluative skill necessary for them to compare with some objectivity the quality of what they are producing in relation to the higher standard, and that they develop a store of tactics or moves which can be drawn upon to modify their own work. It is argued that these skills can be developed by providing direct authentic evaluative experience for students. Instructional systems which do not make explicit provision for the acquisition of evaluative expertise are deficient, because they set up artificial but potentially removable performance ceilings for students.

Lynn S. Fuchs
Douglas Fuchs

This meta-analysis investigated the effects of formative evaluation procedures on student achievement. The data source was 21 controlled studies, which generated 96 relevant effect sizes, with an average weighted effect size of .70. The magnitude of the effect of formative evaluation was associated with publication type, data-evaluation method, data display, and use of behavior modification. Implications for special education practice are discussed.