It has been suggested that assessment for learning be merged into this article.

(Discuss)
Learn more

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Learn more

Formative assessment, formative evaluation, formative feedback, or assessment for learning,[1]

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.[2] It typically involves qualitative feedback (rather than scores) for both student
and teacher that focuses on the details of content and performance.[3] It is commonly contrasted
with summative assessment, which seeks to monitor educational outcomes, often for purposes of
external accountability.[4]

Definition

Formative assessment or assessment for learning involves a continuous way of checks and
balances in the teaching learning processes (Jeri, 2018). The method allows teachers to check their
learners' progress as well as the effectiveness of their own practice, thus allowing for self
assessment of the student. 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.[5]

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.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] It is this approach that reflects the generally accepted meaning
of the term today.[10]
For both Scriven and Bloom, an assessment, whatever its other uses, is only formative if it is used to
alter subsequent educational decisions.[7] Subsequently, however, Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam
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.[5]

Versus summative assessment

The type of assessment that people may be more familiar with is summative assessment. The table
below[11] 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

Sometimes normative
(comparing each student
Frame of Always criterion (evaluating students according
Reference against all others); sometimes to the same criteria)
criterion

Rationale and practice

Formative assessment serves several purposes:

to provide feedback for teachers to modify subsequent learning activities and experiences;[3]

to identify and remediate group or individual deficiencies;[3]

to move focus away from achieving grades and onto learning processes, in order to increase self
efficacy and reduce the negative impact of extrinsic motivation;[4]

to improve students' metacognitive awareness of how they learn.[4]

"frequent, ongoing assessment allows both for fine-tuning of instruction and student focus on
progress."[12]
Characteristics of formative assessment:

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

is essentially positive in intent, in that it is directed towards promoting learning; it is therefore part
of teaching;

it takes into account the progress of each individual, the effort put in and other aspects of
learning which may be unspecified in the curriculum; in other words, it is not purely criterion-
referenced;

it has to take into account several instances in which certain skills and ideas are used and there
will be inconsistencies as well as patterns in behaviour; such inconsistencies would be 'error' in
summative evaluation, but in formative evaluation they provide diagnostic information;

validity and usefulness are paramount in formative assessment and should take precedence over
concerns for reliability;

even more than assessment for other purposes, formative assessment requires that pupils have
a central part in it; pupils have to be active in their own learning (teachers cannot learn for them)
and unless they come to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and how they might deal
with them, they will not make progress.[13]

Feedback is the central function of formative assessment. It typically involves a focus on the
detailed content of what is being learnt,[3] rather than simply a test score or other measurement of
how far a student is falling short of the expected standard.[14]

Examples

The time between formative assessment and adjustments to learning can be a matter of seconds
or a matter of months.[7] Some examples of formative assessment are:

A language teacher asks students to choose the best thesis statement from a selection; if all
choose correctly she moves on; if only some do she may initiate a class discussion; if most
answer incorrectly then she may review the work on thesis statements.[7]

A teacher asks her students to write down, in a brainstorm activity, all they know about how hot-
air balloons work so that she can discover what students already know about the area of science
she is intending to teach.[15]

A science supervisor looks at the previous year's student test results to help plan teacher
workshops during the summer vacation, to address areas of weakness in student performance.[7]
 A teacher documents student work and student conferences to help plan authentic activities to
meet student needs[16]

Students could be given each one of three "traffic cards" to indicate the level at which they are
understanding a concept during a lesson. Green means that the student is understanding the
concept and the teacher can move on, yellow indicates that the instructor should slow down
because the student is only somewhat understanding the concept, and red indicates that the
student wishes that the teacher stops and explains a specific concept more clearly because they
are not understanding it.[17]

As students are leaving class, the teacher asks them to answer the following question and submit
it with their name to exit the class: "Name one important thing you learned in class today." This
helps students synthesize what they had done that day and provides feedback to the teacher
about the class. [18]

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.[19] 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.[20]:9

While empirical evidence has shown the substantial impact formative assessment has in raising
student achievement,[19] it is also "recognized as one of the most powerful ways to enhance student
motivation".[21] 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"[22] are all manners in
which motivation is enhanced through an effective use of formative assessment.[21] 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.[23]

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".[20]: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.[7]

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".[24] In a study done by Gray and Tall,[25] 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[26] 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)[27] 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).[28] 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 should either cause the student to think, or collect
information to inform teaching.[29] 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:

What do you think of [student]'s answer?

What can we add to [student]'s explanation?

[Student] said this and [student] said that, but how can we combine these explanations into a
complete answer?

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[30] went on to research the outcomes
of having longer wait times for students. These included:

answers were longer;

failure to respond decreased;

responses from students were more confident;

students challenged and/or improved the answers of other students;

more alternative explanations were offered.

Peer-assessment

Having students assess each other's work has been studied to have numerous benefits:[31]

When students know that they are going to be assessed by their peers, they tend to put more
attention to detail in their work.

Students are able to speak to one another in a language that they are more comfortable with than
they would be with an instructor. The insight of a fellow student might be more relatable than that
of a teacher.

Students tend to accept constructive criticism more from a fellow student than from an
instructor.

While students are in the process of peer-assessment, a teacher can more easily take command
of the learning going on. The teacher can also stand on the sidelines and watch as the students
continue to assess each other's work and may intervene at any time if need be.

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)[32] and model-eliciting activities (Lesh et al., 2000)[33] 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).[34] 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.[35] It involves gathering the best possible evidence about what students have learned,
and then using that information to decide what to do next. 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).[36]

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).[36] Furthermore, it provides the framework for "efficient retrieval and application"(T.P
Scot et al., 2009).[36] 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]

Student: "I just don't get it." Teacher: "Well, the first part is just like the last problem you did. Then
we add one more variable. See if you can find out what it is, and I'll come back in a few minutes."

"There are 5 answers here that are incorrect. Try to find them and fix them."

"The answer to this question is... Can you find a way to work it out?"

"You've used substitution to solve all of these systems of equations. Can you use elimination now
to solve them?"

Different approaches for feedback encourage pupils to reflect:[37]

"You used two different methods to solve these problems. Can you explain the advantages and
disadvantages of each method?"

"You seem to have a good understanding of... Can you make up your own more difficult problem?"

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

"You seem to be confusing sine and cosine. Talk to Katie about the differences with the two."

"Compare your work with Ali and write some advice to another student tackling this topic for the
first time."

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).[38] 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).[39]

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).[40]
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.[41]

The UK government has stated[42] 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.[43]

The Assessment Reform Group has set out the following 10 principles for formative assessment.[44]

Learning should:

be part of effective planning of teaching and learning

focus on how students learning attitude

be recognised as central to classroom practice

be regarded as a key professional skill for teachers

be sensitive and constructive because any assessment has an emotional impact

take account of the importance of learner motivation

promote commitment to learning goals and a shared understanding of the criteria by which they
are assessed

enable learners to receive constructive guidance about how to improve

develop learners' capacity for self-assessment so that they can become reflective and self-
managing

recognise the full range of achievements of all learners

Benefits for teachers (Boston, 2002)

Teachers are able to determine what standards students already know and to what degree.

Teachers can decide what minor modifications or major changes in instruction they need to make
so that all students can succeed in upcoming instruction and on subsequent assessments.

Teachers can create appropriate lessons and activities for groups of learners or individual
students.

Teachers can inform students about their current progress in order to help them set goals for
improvement.[45]

Benefits for students

Students are more motivated to learn.

Students take responsibility for their own learning.

 Students can become users of assessment alongside the teacher.

Students learn valuable lifelong skills such as self-evaluation, self-assessment, and goal setting.

Students become more adept at self-assessment[46][47][48]

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."[49]

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.[49] These include:

What do we want students to know and do?

How do we know they are learning?

What do we do when they're not learning?

How do we respond when they've already learned the information?

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."[50] 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

Assessment for learning

Computer-aided assessment

E-assessment

Educational assessment

Problem set

Types of assessment

References

1. [1]

2. Crooks, T. (2001). "The Validity of Formative Assessments" . British Educational Research

Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, September 13–15, 2001.

3. Huhta, Ari (2010). "Diagnostic and Formative Assessment". In Spolsky, Bernard; Hult, Francis
M. (eds.). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 469–482.
 4. 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. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 October 2011. Retrieved 25 August 2011.

5. 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 .

6. Scriven, Michael (1967). "The methodology of evaluation". In Stake, R. E. (ed.). Curriculum

evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally. American Educational Research Association (monograph
series on evaluation, no. 1.

7. Wiliam, Dylan (2006). "Formative assessment: getting the focus right". Educational
Assessment. 11 (3–4): 283–289. doi:10.1080/10627197.2006.9652993 .

8. Bloom, Benjamin S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Los Angeles, USA: University of California
press.

9. Bloom, Benjamin S.; Hasting, Thomas; Madaus, George (1971). Handbook of formative and
summative evaluation of student learning. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.

10. Black, Paul; Wiliam, Dylan (2003). " 'In praise of educational research': formative assessment"
(PDF). British Educational Research Journal. 29 (5): 623–637.
doi:10.1080/0141192032000133721 .

11. R. Pr ́egent, Charting your course: How to prepare to teach more effectively, Atwood, 2000.

12. Cauley, K, M.; McMillan, J. H. (2010). "Formative Assessment Techniques". The Clearing House.
83 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1080/00098650903267784 . ProQuest 848217350 .

13. 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 .

14. 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.

15. Cowie, Bronwen; Bell, Beverley (1999). "A model of formative assessment in science
education". Assessment in Education. 6: 101–116. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.157.4767 .
doi:10.1080/09695949993026 .

16. Buldu 2009

17. ORDER, IN. "Five "Key Strategies" for Effective Formative Assessment." (2007).
18. "Sample Exit Tickets | Sheridan Center | Brown University" . www.brown.edu. Retrieved
2019-03-04.

19. Black, Paul; Wiliam, Dylan (1998). "Assessment and Classroom Learning". Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 5 (1): 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 .

20. Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessments and grading that work. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

21. 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 (1pages=1–6): 1–6. doi:10.1080/00098650903267784 .

22. McMillan, James; Hearn, Jessica (2008). "Student Self-assessment: The Key to Stronger
Student Motivation and Higher Achievement". Educational Horizons. 87 (1): 40–49.

23. Wiliam, Dylan; Thompson, M (2008). "Integrating Assessment with Instruction: What will it take
to make it work?". In C. A. Dwyer (ed.). The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and
Learning. Routledge. pp. 53–82.

24. Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. New York: Prentice Hall, 2000.

25. 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.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.377.601 . doi:10.2307/749505 . JSTOR 749505 .

26. White, Barbara Y.; Frederiksen, John R. (1998). "Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making
Science Accessible to All Students". Cognition and Instruction. 16 (1): 3–118.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.460.5895 . doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2 .

27. 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. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.461.6812 .
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 .

28. 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 .

29. Wiliam, Dylan (2017). Embedded Formative Assessment (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree. p. 90.

30. 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 .
31. P. Black and D. Wiliam, Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment,
Depart- ment of education & professional studies, GL Assessment, 2006.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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 .

35. http://www.nbpts.org/help_and_faqs/assessment

36. 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 .

37. Hodgen, Jeremy, and Dylan Wiliam. Mathematics inside the Black Box: Assessment for
Learning in the Mathematics Classroom. London: NFER-Nelson, 2006.

38. Bachman. L.F. & Palmer A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press.

39. Cohen. A. (1994). Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

40. 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.

41. Jones, Dr Cheryl A, Assessment for Learning, Learning and Skills Development Agency (now
the Learning and Skills Network) (2005), p.1

42. A national conversation about personalised learning – a summary of the DfES discussion
pamphlet, Department for Education and Skills (2005), p.8

43. Duckett, Ian and Brooke, Di, Learning and Skills Network (2007), p.1
44. Assessment for Learning: 10 research-based principles to guide classroom practice,
Assessment Reform Group (2002), p.2

45. Boston, Carol (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation, 8(9).

46. 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 .

47. Marzano, Robert J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

48. 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.

49. Bailey, K.; Jakicic, C. (2012). Common Formative Assessment: A Toolkit for Professional
Learning Communities at Work . Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

50. Tomlinson, C.A.; McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding By
Design . Alexandria, VA: ASCD. p. 27.

External links

The Concept of Formative Assessment. ERIC Digest.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority: assessment

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority: assessment for learning documents

Assessment for Learning (Learning and Skills Development Agency, now the Learning and Skills
Network) (PDF)

Learning and Skills Network website

Assessment Reform Group website

The EvaluationWiki - The mission of EvaluationWiki is to make freely available a compendium of

up-to-date information and resources to everyone involved in the science and practice of
evaluation. The EvaluationWiki is presented by the non-profit Evaluation Resource Institute.

The OpenEd directory of Formative Assessments

Formative-Assessment.com - Comprehensive Site on Formative Assessment

Phelps, Richard P. (2012). "The Effect of Testing on Student Achievement, 1910–2010".

International Journal of Testing. 12 (1): 21–43. doi:10.1080/15305058.2011.602920 .