Notes towards a theory of formative assessment

Dylan Wiliam

King’s College London

www.kcl.ac.uk

www.dylanwiliam.net

Outline

What is formative assessment?

Putting it into practice

Theorising the outcomes

Assessment for Learning...

Assessment for learning is any assessment for which the first priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose of promoting learning. It thus differs from assessment designed primarily to serve the purposes of accountability, or of ranking, or of certifying competence.

Specifically, assessment for learning describes all those activities undertaken by learners and teachers to assist the learners

in finding out where they are in their learning,

where they are going, and

how to get there.

Formative assessment

An assessment activity can help learning if it provides information to be used as feedback, by teachers, and by their students, in assessing themselves and each other, to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged. Such assessment becomes ‘formative assessment’ when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet learning needs.

What research says aboutAssessment for Learning

Reviews of research provide firm evidence that Assessment for Learning practices improve learning and raise achievement

• Natriello (1987)

• Crooks (1988)

• Black and Wiliam (1998)

Substantial effects

About 50 studies, ranging over ages, subjects and countries, compared improvements in achievements for students in ‘intervention’ groups with students in ‘control’ groups. ‘Assessment for learning’ innovations typically produced effect sizes of between 0.4 and 0.7 – larger than those found for most other educational innovations.

Aspects of formative assessment

Where the learner is

Where they are going

How to get there

TeacherEliciting

informationCurriculum philosophy

Feedback

PeerPeer-

assessmentSharing criteria

Peer-tutoring

LearnerSelf-

assessmentSharing criteria

?

Inferences from responses

Actuality

Not learnt Learnt

EvidenceNot learnt Safe Safe?

Learnt Unsafe Safe

Kinds of questions: Israel

Which fraction is the smallest?

a) 16

, b) 23

, c) 13

, d) 12

.

Success rate 88%

Which fraction is the largest?

Success rate 46%; 39% chose (b)

a) 45

, b) 34

, c) 58

, d) 7

10.

[Vinner, PME conference, Lahti, Finland, 1997]

Fit and match (false positives)

Responses to weak questions are consistent with (ie match) a wide range of learning outcomes, and thus provide limited support for inferences about learning needs

Responses to strong questions are consistent (ie fit) only with a narrow range of learning outcomes, and thus provide strong support for inferences about learning needs

Disclosure (false negatives)

Questions with high disclosure can be relied on to provide evidence of the learner’s capability on the construct of interest (ie if they know it, they show it)

Questions with low disclosure cannot be relied on to provide evidence of the learner’s capability (ie verdict is not proven)

Effects of feedback (1)

132 low and high ability year 7 pupils in 12 classes in 4 schoolsSame teaching, same aims, same teachers, same classworkThree kinds of feedback: marks, comments, marks+comments

Feedback Gain Interest

marks none top +vebottom -ve

[Butler(1988) Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 58 1-14]

comments 30% all +ve

marks pluscomments none top +ve

bottom -ve

Effects of feedback (2)

Kluger & DeNisi (1996) undertook a comprehensive review of research reports related to feedback

Excluding those:with poor design or without adequate controls

with fewer than 10 participants

where performance was not measured or effect sizes not given

left 131 reports, 607 effect sizes, on 12652 individuals

Average effect size 0.4, butstandard deviation of effect sizes almost 1.0

40% of effect sizes were negative

Quality of feedback: scaffolding

Day & Cordón, 1993

2 Y4 classesexperimental group 1 given solution when stuck

experimental group 2 given ‘scaffolded’ response

Group 2 outperformed group 1

Feedback and formative assessment

Feedback contributes to Assessment for Learning (ie the assessment is formative) only if the information fed back to the learner is actually used by the learner in making improvements.

Understanding quality

Conditions for improvement (Sadler, 1989)“The indispensable conditions for improvement are that the student comes to hold a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher, is continuously able to monitor the quality of what is being produced during the act of production itself, and has a repertoire of alternative moves or strategies from which to draw at any given point.”

Telosgoals versus horizons

Understanding quality

“Maxims cannot be understood, still less applied by anyone not already possessing a good practical knowledge of the art. They derive their interest from our appreciation of the art and cannot themselves either replace or establish that appreciation”.(Polanyi, 1958 p50).

“Quality doesn’t have to be defined. You understand it without definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions”.(Pirsig, 1991 p64).

[Frederiksen & White, AERA conference, Chicago, 1997]

Understanding quality3 teachers each teaching 4 Y8 science classes in two US schools14 week experiment7 two-week projects, scored 2-10For a part of each week

Two of each teacher’s classes discusses their likes and dislikes about the teaching (control)The other two classes discusses how their work will be assessed

All other teaching is the same

Score on basic skills test

Group Low Middle High

Likes anddislikes

4.6 5.9 6.6

Reflectiveassessment

6.7 7.2 7.4

Sharing criteria with learners

[Fontana & Fernandez, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 64: 407-417]

Self-assessment: Portugal50 teachers following a part-time Masters in Education programme for one evening a week over two years25 teachers spent two terms (ie 20 weeks) developing and promoting pupil self-assessment in mathematicsStudents taught by control group teachers gained 7.5 marks over the two terms Students taught by teachers developing self-assessment (matched in age, qualifications and experience,using the same mathematics scheme for the same amount of time): 15 marks

Formative & summative

Summative functionvalidated by widely shared meanings

require teachers to form a community of practice

Formative functionvalidated by appropriate consequences (ie learning)

require learners to be enculturated into the same community of practice

require teachers to interpret performance in terms of learning needs (ie to possess an anatomy of quality)

Educational knowledge

Nature of knowledge in educationno reliable knowledge

reasonableness, not rationality

Nature of expertiseexquisitely attuned to local context

Countdown

25 3

9 4

Target number: 127

1

Knowledge transfer

aaa

Dialogue

Learning by doing

Socializationsympathised knowledge Externalizationconceptual knowledge

Internalizationoperational knowledge Combinationsystemic knowledge

Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledgeto

from

Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Sharing experience Networking

After Nonaka & Tageuchi, 1995

KMO Formative Assessment Project

24 teachers, each developing their practice in individual ways

Different outcome variables

No possibility of standardized controls

‘Local design’

Synthesis by standardized effect size

Inset timetable

A February 1999 introduction

B May 1999 developing action plans

C June 1999 reviewing and revising action plans

D November 1999 sharing experiences, refining action plans,planning dissemination

E January 2000 research methods, dissemination, optionalsessions including theories of learning

F April 2000 integrating learning goals with target settingand planning, writing personal diaries

G June 2000 action plans and school dissemination plans,data analysis ‘while you wait’

Practical strategies: questioning

Improving teacher questioningclosed v openlow-order v high-ordergenerating questions with colleagues

‘Hot Seat’ questioningextended interaction with one student to scaffold learningother students learn vicariously

‘No hands up’ (except to ask a question)Brainstorming what students know alreadyIncreased wait timeTraining students to pose questionsClass polls to review current attitudes towards an issue

Practical strategies: feedbackComment-only markingFocused markingExplicit reference to criteriaSuggestions on how to improve

‘Strategy cards’ ideas for improvementNot giving complete solutions

Re-timing assessment(eg two-thirds-of-the-way-through-a-topic test)

Practical strategies:understanding quality

Explaining learning objectives at start of lesson/unit

Criteria in students’ language

Posters of key words to talk about learningeg describe, explain, evaluate

Planning/writing frames

Annotated examples of different standards to ‘flesh out’ assessment criteria

Opportunities for students to design their own tests

Practical strategies:peer- and self-assessment

Students assessing their own/peers’ work with marking schemeswith criteriawith exemplars

Identifying group weaknessesSelf-assessment of confidence and uncertainty

Traffic lightsSmiley facesPost-it notes

End-of-lesson students’ review

Clustering of strategies -+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+- 2 + + | GWREV | | SOLST | | | 1 + + | PPA COM | | POST CWEG TQ CWMC | | EART PWQ GWTS GWTR | 0 + EOLTR SAO SATL PAQ + | GWEXP SOLMAC SAT | | EAPT INCP | | EOLPR | -1 + PRES + | ICA | | | | | -2 + + -+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+- -2 -1 0 1 2

Theorising formative assessment

Why?to make sense of studies with low power

to relate formative assessment to other, similar interventions (eg thinking skills programmes such as cognitive acceleration)

to simplify or optimise the intervention

A theory of everything?

No; formative assessment focuses on moments of contingency in teaching and learning, but

provides a ‘Trojan Horse’ into wider issues

[Whether formative assessments works] no longer seems to me, however, to be the central issue. It would seem more important to concentrate on the theoretical models of learning and its regulation and their implementation. These constitute the real systems of thought and action, in which feedback is only one element. ( Perrenoud, 1998, p.86)

Theorising formative assessment

Regulationof activity

of learning

A simple model

Roles (division of labour)Teachers

Students• as individuals

• as groups

Resources (cultural artefacts)Theories of learning

Nature of subject

Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler (Einstein)

A simple model

Teachers

Students asindividuals

SubjectsStudents as

groups

Theories oflearning

Subject knowledge

Types of knowledgeabstract content knowledge

pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986)

Subject differencesknowledge to be assimilated

skills to be acquired

capability to be developed

Subject knowledge

[Teachers of other subjects] do more of it than us as part of their normal teaching. Art and drama teachers do it all the time, so do technology teachers (something to do with open-ended activities, long project times, and perhaps a less cramped curriculum?). But an English teacher came up to me today and said “Yesterday afternoon was fantastic. I tried it today with my year 8s, and it works. No hands up, and giving them time to think. I had fantastic responses from kids who have barely spoken in class all year. They all wanted to say something and the quality of answers was brilliant. This is the first time for ages that I’ve learnt something new that’s going to make a real difference to my teaching.”

James, Two Bishops School

Theories of learning

Teachers have asked for lectures on the psychology of education!

They have begun to focus on what their students make of their teaching, and to build predictive models of how they will learn.

The teacher’s role

“I would like to suggest several ways forward, based on distinguishing two levels of the management of situations which favour the interactive regulation of learning processes:

the first relates to the setting up of such situations through much larger mechanisms and classroom management;

the second relates to interactive regulation which takes place through didactic situations.”

(Perrenoud, 1998 p.92)

The teacher’s role

I now think more about the content of the lesson. The influence has shifted from ‘what am I going to teach and what are the pupils going to do?’ towards ‘how am I doing to teach this and what are the pupils going to learn?’ (Susan, Waterford School)

There was a definite transition at some point, from focusing on what I was putting into the process, to what the students were contributing. It became obvious that one way to make a significant sustainable change was to get the students doing more of the thinking. I then began to search for ways to make the learning process more transparent to the students. Indeed, I now spend my time looking for ways to get students to take responsibility for their learning and at the same time making the learning more collaborative. (Tom, Riverside School)

The students’ role

They feel that the pressure to succeed in tests is being replaced by the need to understand the work that has been covered and the test is just an assessment along the way of what needs more work and what seems to be fine. [...] They have commented on the fact that they think I am more interested in the general way to get to an answer than a specific solution and when Clare [a researcher] interviewed them they decided this was so that they could apply their understanding in a wider sense. (Belinda, Cornbury Estate School)

Critical factors

Evidence

Ideas

Support

Reflection

Time

And yet...

The 4-component model is a model only of ‘what happened?’—a representation of the dynamics of the process of implementation

Were the components right?

Criteria for individual componentsrelevance

feasibility

acceptability

based on cognitive/affective principles

Criteria for the collection of componentssynergy

completeness (eg integrating formative & summative)

Principles for design 1

Process of intervention must be slow, steady, piecemeal ‘infiltration’ rather than by wholesale imposition

Content of intervention must match such an approach

components must emphasise underlying principles• synergy

• comprehensiveness

• based in cognitive and affective principles

Design and intervention

The design process

The implementation process

cognitive/affectiveinsights

synergy/comprehensiveness

set ofcomponents

set ofcomponents

synergy/comprehensiveness

cognitive/affectiveinsights

Principles for design 2

Design of process must promote progress in each of

role of teacher

role of students

nature of the subject

theories of learning

and must foster interactions between these.

Outside all this

Teacher change & professional development

Context effectsinstitutional effects

national cultures and policies

resources