Still, there are some promising classroom-based assessment programs. For instance, a formative assessment program designed at Florida State University provides K-12 teachers with complex student mathematics tasks and rubrics. An experiment at the primary grades suggests that students’ mathematics performance improve after teachers use these tasks to assess mathematical competency. Another program, Cognitively Guided Instruction, educated teachers about early grade students’ developmental trajectories in mathematics and provided time for teachers to work out strategies to assess student knowledge. This program has also shown positive results in repeated randomized trials.
But it would not be right to simply say that “formative assessment works” based on these two studies. It was not only assessment that changed in these classrooms, but also the nature of mathematical tasks; students were working on more open-ended, cognitively complex problems, and teachers were providing them with opportunities to really think those problems through. It’s likely that the package of these pedagogical techniques — new tasks, new teaching methods, formative assessment strategies — drove the programs’ success in improving student achievement. And beyond these two programs, rigorous evidence on formative assessment is difficult to find.
I’m not optimistic about teachers studying formal student data, and, if I were a principal, I’d put my eggs in another basket. For instance, I’d probably think about coaching teachers to be more aware of students’ in-classroom work product and cues. In classroom observations, I’ve seen many excellent teachers read kids’ faces and listen to their talk, then adjust instruction accordingly. And there’s such huge opportunity costs associated with the time teachers put into studying student data, and the time kids spend taking benchmark assessments and the like. While these practices MAY work, I’d recommend going with programs that we know DO work.
This answer was developed in partnership with Usable Knowledge at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Still, there are some promising classroom-based assessment programs. For instance, a formative assessment program designed at Florida State University provides K-12 teachers with complex student mathematics tasks and rubrics. An experiment at the primary grades suggests that students’ mathematics performance improve after teachers use these tasks to assess mathematical competency. Another program, Cognitively Guided Instruction, educated teachers about early grade students’ developmental trajectories in mathematics and provided time for teachers to work out strategies to assess student knowledge. This program has also shown positive results in repeated randomized trials.
But it would not be right to simply say that “formative assessment works” based on these two studies. It was not only assessment that changed in these classrooms, but also the nature of mathematical tasks; students were working on more open-ended, cognitively complex problems, and teachers were providing them with opportunities to really think those problems through. It’s likely that the package of these pedagogical techniques — new tasks, new teaching methods, formative assessment strategies — drove the programs’ success in improving student achievement. And beyond these two programs, rigorous evidence on formative assessment is difficult to find.
I’m not optimistic about teachers studying formal student data, and, if I were a principal, I’d put my eggs in another basket. For instance, I’d probably think about coaching teachers to be more aware of students’ in-classroom work product and cues. In classroom observations, I’ve seen many excellent teachers read kids’ faces and listen to their talk, then adjust instruction accordingly. And there’s such huge opportunity costs associated with the time teachers put into studying student data, and the time kids spend taking benchmark assessments and the like. While these practices MAY work, I’d recommend going with programs that we know DO work.
This answer was developed in partnership with Usable Knowledge at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Research Map