Formative assessment
Formative assessment encompasses the systematic collection and analysis of evidence about student learning during instruction, enabling teachers to provide targeted feedback and adjust pedagogical approaches to enhance understanding and performance.[1] This contrasts with summative assessment, which evaluates cumulative achievement at the end of a learning period without intent to modify ongoing instruction.[2] Originating from foundational research by Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam in the late 1990s, formative practices emphasize "moments of contingency" where instructional decisions pivot based on real-time data, rather than rigid adherence to predefined plans.[3] Empirical evidence from meta-analyses indicates that effective implementation yields moderate positive effects on academic outcomes, such as an effect size of approximately 0.19 in reading achievement, though results vary by context and fidelity of application.[4] Key strategies include clarifying learning intentions, eliciting evidence through questioning or tasks, providing actionable feedback, activating students as owners of their learning via self-assessment, and enabling peer evaluation, all grounded in causal mechanisms that promote metacognition and adaptive teaching.[5] Despite widespread adoption, challenges persist in distinguishing genuine formative activities from superficial checks, underscoring the need for teacher expertise to realize causal benefits over mere procedural compliance.[6]Definition and Historical Origins
Core Definition
Formative assessment refers to the ongoing process in educational settings where teachers and students gather evidence of student learning during instruction to inform and adjust teaching practices and learning activities accordingly.[7] This approach emphasizes frequent, interactive methods—such as quizzes, observations, discussions, and student self-assessments—to identify strengths, misconceptions, and gaps in understanding, enabling real-time adaptations rather than end-of-unit evaluations.[2] Unlike summative assessment, which measures achievement against standards at a fixed point, formative assessment prioritizes improvement over judgment, typically without assigning grades that contribute to formal accountability.[8] The seminal review by Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam in 1998 synthesized over 250 studies, defining formative assessment as "all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged."[9] This feedback loop involves sharing learning intentions, eliciting evidence through varied techniques, interpreting that evidence against criteria, and acting on it to advance student progress.[7] Empirical analyses indicate that effective implementation can yield effect sizes of 0.4 to 0.8 standard deviations in student achievement, particularly when students actively participate in self-regulation.[7] Core to formative assessment is its diagnostic and responsive nature, distinguishing it from mere monitoring by requiring actionable responses that close the gap between current performance and desired outcomes.[10] Research underscores that it functions best when integrated into daily instruction, avoiding high-stakes elements that could undermine its developmental intent.[11] While definitions vary slightly across contexts, the consensus from educational research prioritizes its role in enhancing learning processes over static measurement.[12]Etymology and Early Development
The term "formative evaluation," precursor to "formative assessment," was coined by philosopher Michael Scriven in 1967 during discussions on curriculum evaluation methodologies. Scriven distinguished formative evaluation—conducted mid-process to diagnose issues and guide revisions—from summative evaluation, which occurs post-completion to render judgments on overall merit.[13] This dichotomy arose in the context of program and curriculum development, where ongoing feedback was seen as essential for iterative improvement rather than terminal appraisal.[14] Preceding Scriven's terminology, educational psychologist Lee J. Cronbach alluded to formative-like practices in 1963, advocating for evaluation data to refine course objectives and instruction during development, rather than solely for accountability.[15] Scriven's framework, presented in the American Educational Research Association monograph Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, emphasized goal-oriented information gathering, influencing subsequent applications beyond curricula to broader instructional systems.[16] The adaptation to "formative assessment" in classroom settings gained traction through Benjamin Bloom's 1968 work Learning for Mastery, which integrated Scriven's concepts into mastery learning models. Bloom posited formative assessments as diagnostic tools to monitor student progress, adjust teaching, and ensure mastery before advancing, thereby linking evaluation directly to learning outcomes.[17] This shift marked the term's evolution from program-centric evaluation to student-focused assessment, embedding it in pedagogical theory by the late 1960s amid growing emphasis on feedback-driven instruction. Early implementations appeared in experimental programs, such as those testing criterion-referenced testing, though widespread adoption lagged until the 1970s and 1980s.[14]Comparison with Summative Assessment
Fundamental Distinctions
Formative assessment differs fundamentally from summative assessment in purpose, timing, and application of results. Formative assessment aims to monitor student learning during instruction to provide ongoing feedback that instructors use to adjust teaching strategies and students employ to enhance their understanding.[8] In contrast, summative assessment evaluates student achievement at the conclusion of an instructional period, such as a unit or course, to determine mastery against predefined standards.[8] The timing of these assessments underscores their distinct roles: formative occurs iteratively throughout the learning process, often integrated into daily activities like quizzes or discussions, allowing real-time adaptations.[18] Summative assessment, however, is typically administered once at a discrete endpoint, such as final exams or standardized tests, yielding a static summary of performance without immediate instructional modification.[18]| Aspect | Formative Assessment | Summative Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Purpose | To inform and improve teaching and learning through feedback | To judge and certify student achievement against standards |
| Timing | Ongoing, during the instructional process | At the end of an instructional unit or period |
| Use of Results | Diagnostic; guides adjustments in instruction and student strategies | Evaluative; informs grades, promotions, or certifications |
| Stakes | Low or no grading; focuses on process and development | High stakes; contributes to formal evaluations |
| Examples | In-class polls, draft reviews, peer feedback | Final exams, end-of-term projects, standardized tests |