MESHGuides

Feedback is key for reducing the gap between where the learner currently is to the desired outcome. It is, therefore, a central part of the formative assessment process. The important point, however, is that it is not only the giving of feedback which improves learning, but that the feedback received is acted upon by the learner and/or the teacher.

A frequent key question for teachers is: “Are we ready to move on yet?” In many classrooms, it might be the case that a teacher asks the class a question; several students put up their hands; the teacher picks one of these students; the student gets the answer correct; and the teacher feels confident that the class is ready to move on. The big problem here is that we are not sure as to whether the other, say, 30 or so students have understood the concept, too. In other words, we have not gathered quality evidence that we are indeed ready to move on.

Learning Intentions

In many English schools, it is quite common for teachers to begin the lesson with sharing the Learning Intention(s) (also commonly referred to as Learning Objectives) with students. Although wording may differ slightly, these tend to relate around the following three categories:

• To know…

• To understand… (sometimes "know how"…)

• To be able to…

An assessment system which relies heavily on making inferences about individuals, teachers, and schools from just end-of-course examination data can be seen as hugely problematic; to some one of the principle issues is that, by doing so, a serious threat to validity has occurred: construct under-representation. What this means is that, since only a small part of the entire taught curriculum can be assessed, other equally important learning outcomes go untested. (Brookhart et al., 2019).

Despite the wealth of research into and exemplification of good formative assessment practices, Booth (2017), in his article for England’s Chartered College of Teaching, cites some of the key reasons why, in England, formative assessment has not had the impact in schools it had promised.

First, we need to consider the definition issue. As the Assessment Reform Group have stated:

Leahy et al., (2005) (cited in Wiliam and Leahy, 2015: 11) provide a useful framework (shown in the table below) which crosses three phases (where the learner is going, where the learner currently is, and how to get there) with three types of classroom-based agents (teacher, peer, and learner).

Although in academic literature both formative assessment and Assessment for Learning (AfL)are used synonymously, it is important to note that, for some, the two terms do actually differ. For example, Wiliam (2018c) states that:

Sadler (1989) argued that the term “formative assessment” should be integrated within effective teaching. He stated:

[it] is concerned with how judgements about the quality of student responses (performances, pieces, or works) can be used to shape and improve the student’s competence by short-circuiting the randomness and inefficiency of trial-and-error learning (1989: 120).

Assessment, according to Cronbach, can be described as a ‘procedure for making inferences’ (1971: 447).

It is widely accepted that Scriven was the first to use the term “formative” where its role was to evaluate the ‘on-going improvement of the curriculum’ (Scriven, 1967: 41). Two years later, Bloom applied Scriven’s definition to classroom-based testing: