On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 295-314

  Shavelson, Richard J ^a   Young, Donald B ^b   Ayala, Carlos C ^c   Brandon, Paul R ^b   Furtak, Erin Marie ^d   Ruiz Primo, Maria Araceli ^e   Tomita, Miki K ^a,b   Yin, Yue ^b,f  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

^c SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52949087938     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340802347647     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-73.
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004a). Classroom assessment is not (necessarily) formative assessment (and vice-versa). In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards a coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (pp. 183-188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Black, P., & Wiliain, D. (2004b). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom, assessment and accountability (pp. 20-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
5. Cronbach, L. J. & Associates (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2007). Studying the effectiveness of four types of formative assessment prompts in providing information about students' understanding in writing and discussions. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
7. Li, M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (2006). Towards a science achievement framework: The case of TIMSS 1999. In S. Howie & T. Plomp (Eds.), Contexts of learning mathematics and science: Lessons learned from TIMSS (pp. 291-311). London: Routledge.
8. National Assessment Governing Board (2006). Science assessment and item specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Education Progress (pre-publication ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
9. Pottenger, F. M. I., & Young, D. B. (1992). The local environment: FAST 1, Foundational approaches in science teaching. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Curriculum Research & Development group.
10. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
11. Shavelson, R. J. (2006). On the integration of formative assessment in teaching and learning: Implications for new pathways in teacher education, In F. Oser, F. Achtenhagen, & U. Renold (Eds.), Competence-oriented teacher training: Old research demands and new pathways (pp. 63-78). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
12. Shavelson, R. J. (1995). On the romance of science curriculum, and assessment reform in the United States. In D. K. Sharpes & A.-L. Leino (Eds.), The dynamic concept of curriculum: Invited papers to honour the memory of Paul Hellgren (pp. 57-76). (Research. Bulletin. 90). Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
13. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1991). Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362, (Special Issue, R. Stiggins & B. Plake, Guest Editors.)
14. Shavelson, R. J., Roeser, R. W., Kupermintz, H., Lau, S., Ayala, C., Haydel, A., Schultz, S., Quihuis, G., & Gallagher, L. (2002). Richard E. Snow's remaking of the concept of aptitude and multidimensional test validity: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 77-100.
15. Shavelson, R. J., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (1999). On the psychometrics of assessing science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wamhersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.) Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 303-341). New York: Academic Press.
16. Shavelson, R. J., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., Young, D. B., Tomita, M. K., Brandon, P. R., & Pottenger, F. (2008). On the role and impact of formative assessment on science inquiry teaching and learning. In J. E. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 21-36). Washington, DC: NSTA Press.
17. Wilson, M. (Ed.) (2004). Towards a coherence between, classroom assessment and accountability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Wilson, M. R., & Bertenthal, M. W. (Eds.) (2005). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19. Yin, Y. (2005). The influence of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.