Formative assessmentand

student success

Mantz Yorke

A typology of formative assessment

Probably the mainapproach in HE

Where circumstancespermit

Via peer assessmentactivities

Over coffee or inthe bar

Problems if assessoris mentor, supervisor

In work-basedsituations

Only if an assessmentrequirement

Where student is acting self-critically

From Formal Informal

Teachers

Peers

Others

Self

Formative assessment …

implies no more (and no less) than a discerning judgement about [a] learner’s progress; it is ‘on-going’ in the sense that it goes on all the time; and it is formative in so far as its purpose is forward-looking, aiming to improve future learning (as distinct from the retrospective nature of summative assessment).

Greenwood et al. (2001, p.109)

Formative assessment

Black and Wiliam’s meta-analysis showed a size effect of 0.7

… formative assessment does improve learning …

The gains in achievement [are] among the largest ever reported for educational interventions.

Black and Wiliam (1998, p.61)

However, there are weaknesses . . .

Weaknesses (Subject Review etc.)

In 49 per cent of cases, marking systems could be improved particularly in respect of feedback to students.This sometimes lacked a critical edge, gave few helpful comments and failed to indicate to students ways in which improvement could be made.

QAA (2001, para 28: Subject overview report, Education)

See also QAA (2004) Learning from Subject Review and

Learning from higher education in further education colleges in England

Weaknesses (Foundation Degrees)

Students of about one-half of the programmes

experience some variation in the quality of written

formative feedback. It is not always clear to students

how their assessed work could be improved.

In five cases review teams highlight this as a

serious problem.

QAA (2003, para 56: Review of 33 Foundation Degrees)

Formative assessment

• is a more complex matter than some may appreciate

• can be construed as a signalling system

• has an important personal dimension

Assessmenttask

Assessorinterprets

Grade,feedback

Studentinterprets

Studentinterprets

Criteria

Tutor/assessorStudent

Studentperforms

Tutor/assessor’s self-learning

Teacher characteristicsSubject structureProgram specification

Student’s self-theories,general development

Employability;broader personal effectiveness

Subjectunder-standing

Meta-cognition

Skilfulpracticesin context

Personalqualities, includingself-theoriesand efficacybeliefs

E

S

U M

The USEM account

The importance of ‘the personal’

Malleable v. fixed self-theory Dweck (1999)

Learning > performance goals Dweck (1999)

Emotional state Boekaerts (2003)

Locus of control Rotter (1966)

Self-efficacy Bandura (1997)

Learned optimism Seligman (1998)

Practical intelligence Sternberg (1997)

Emotional intelligence Goleman (1996)

Academic and practical intelligence

Very many successful lawyers … are not all that bright. Some of our best judges do not shine intellectually. Becoming a good lawyer requires a mixture of talents, of which the intelligence revealed by the proposed [university entry] tests is only one. Equally, many bright people have proved to be rubbish lawyers.

Marcel Berlins, on the proposal by 8 top universities to devise an entry examination to complement A-level

The Guardian G2, 10 February 2004, p.17

Child……Young adult………………………………….Senior

IQ

Child……Young adult………………………………….Senior

IQ

Practical intelligence

The virtue of small steps …

I found having large blocks of work without

assessment difficult – you don’t know if you are

grasping it or not until exam time!

Assignments weekly would be better from my

point of view.

[Female in her 30s, pursuing a science-based FD programme]

The virtue of small steps …

The less individuals believe in themselves, the more

they need explicit, proximal, and frequent feedback

of progress that provides repeated affirmations

of their growing capabilities.

Bandura (1997, p.217)

… and of supportive feedback

Students observed that feedback was given in

such a way that they did not feel it was rejecting

or discouraging . . .

[and] that feedback procedures assisted them in

forming accurate perceptions of their abilities and

establishing internal standards with which to evaluate

their own work

Mentkowski and Associates (2000, p.82)

Knowledge gain: effect sizes

Meta-analyses Size N studies

Self-system (E of USEM) 0.74 147

Metacognition (M) 0.72 556

Marzano (1998)

Towards greater autonomy

Probably the mainapproach in HE

Where circumstancespermit

Via peer assessmentactivities

Over coffee or inthe bar

Problems if assessoris mentor, supervisor

In work-basedsituations

Only if an assessmentrequirement

Where student is acting self-critically

From Formal Informal

Teachers

Peers

Others

Self

Threats

1. The concern with standards

2. The legacy of the ‘scientific measurement’ paradigm

3. Increased student/staff ratios

4. Unitisation of curricula

5. Research etc.

6. Students maximising the ratio of grade/effort

Learning Learning Learning

Traditional programme based on year-long units

FormAsst

FormAsst

SummAsst

Academic year

SummAsst

Learning

SummAsst

Learning

Modular programme based on semesters

Formative Assessment?

A challenge for modularity

Successful ‘WP institutions’

Inter alia

• Emphasise early formative assessment

• Are committed to the support of students

• Accentuate the social in programmes

Change

Educational change is technically simple and

socially complex

Fullan (2001, p.69)

There is no quick fix