Working toward integrated practice: Understanding the interaction among formative assessment strategies

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 112, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 301-314

  Lyon, Christine J ^a   Nabors Oláh, Leslie ^a   Caroline Wylie, E ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

classroom assessment; classroom observation; Formative assessment; professional development

Indexed keywords

EID: 85060199444     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2018.1514359     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students' writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3–13.
2. Andrade, H. L., Wang, X. L., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287–301.
3. Archer, J., Cantrell, S., Holtzman, S. L., Joe, J. N., Tocci, C. M., & Wood, J. (2016). Better feedback for better teaching: A practical guide to improving classroom observations. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544–559.
5. Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement, 8(2–3), 70–91.
6. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.
7. Bennett, R. E., (2013). Formative assessment: Process and tool. Paper presented at the National Conference on Student Assessment, National Harbor, MD.
8. Birman, B. F., Le Floch, K. C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., … Yoon, K.-S. (2007). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act Volume II- Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
9. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Assessment for learning. New York, NY: Open University Press
10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5–31.
12. Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(2), 161–180.
13. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Comprehensive assessment systems in service of learning: Getting the balance right. In R. W., Lissitz (Ed.), Informing the practice of teaching using formative and interim assessment: A systems approach (pp. 165–184). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
14. Brookhart, S. M., Andolina, M., Zuza, M., & Furman, R. (2004). Minute math: An action research study of student self-assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 213–227.
15. CCSSO. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. A work product coordinated by Sarah McManus, NC Department of Public Instruction, for the Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) collaborative. Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC.
16. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence. In J., Bransford, D. J., Stipek, N. J., Vye, L., Gomez & D., Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
17. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(4), 173–206.
18. Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Deane, P. (2011). Writing assessment and cognition ETS Research Report: Vol. 11–14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Educational Testing Service. (2009). Keeping learning on track: Teacher workbook. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
22. Educational Testing Service. (2013a). Cognitively Based of, for, and as Learning: Handbook to Romeo & Juliet. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
23. Educational Testing Service. (2013b). Cognitively Based of, for, and as Learning: Teacher Handbook for CBAL Mathematics - Algebra C. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25. Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16–21.
26. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38(4), 915–945.
27. Goertz, M. E., Oláh, L. N., & Riggan, M. (2009). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction CPRE Research Report No. RR-65. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
28. Graf, E. A. (2009). Defining mathematics competency in the service of cognitively based assessment for grades 6 through 8. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
29. Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Online Submission.
30. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
31. Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry in Clinical and Educational Settings. New York, NY: Guilford.
32. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). CCSSO: Washington, DC.
33. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. L. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31.
34. Herman, J. L., & Choi, K. (2008). Formative assessment and the improvement of middle school science learning: The role of teacher accuracy. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
35. Herman, J. L., & Heritage, M. (2007). Moving from piecemeal to effective formative assessment practice: Moving pictures on the road to student learning. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers Assessment Conference, Nashville, TN.
36. Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., & Silver, D. (2010). Capturing quality in formative assessment practice: Measurement challenges. (Vol. CRESST Report 770). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
37. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.
38. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Policy and Practice Brief. MET Project. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
39. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126.
40. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta‐analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.
41. Knight, J. (2005). A primer on instructional coaches. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 6–21.
42. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Leahy, S., Lyon, C. J., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Assessment, 63(3), 19–24.
44. Lyon, C. J., Brenneman, M. W., Oláh, L. N., & Brown, C. (2013). Developing a formative assessment protocol to measure implementation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
45. Lyon, C. J., Leusner, D. M., & Mullholland, M. (2012). The evaluation of the implementation of CBAL formative assessment materials: Final report. Final report for CBAL Allocation Initiative. ETS. Princeton, NJ.
46. Lyon, C. J., Mavronikolas, E., & Wylie, E. C. (2010). Using assessment to help students succeed: A report on the implementation and impact of the keeping learning on track program. Princeton, NJ: Report prepared for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
47. Lyon, C. J., Nabors Olah, L., & Brenneman, M. W. (submitted). A formative assessment focused observation protocol: Evaluating the scoring inference. Educational Assessment Journal (submitted)
48. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Vol. OP-170. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
49. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British educational research journal, 30(3), 359–377.
50. Nabors Oláh, L., Lawrence, N. R., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226–245.
51. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P. L. 107–110, U. S. C. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
52. O’Leary, M., Lysaght, Z., & Ludlow, L. (2013). A measurement instrument to evaluate teachers’ assessment for learning classroom practices International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 14, 40–60.
53. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: Sage Publications Inc.
54. Penuel, W. R., & Shepard, L. A. (2014). Assessment and teaching. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Washington, DC: AERA. Google Scholar.
55. Perie, M., Marion, S., & Gong, B. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 5–13.
56. Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher-child interactions in prekindergarten classrooms. Early childhood research quarterly, 23(4), 431–451.
57. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
58. Randel, B., Beesley, A. D., Apthorp, H., Clark, T. F., Wang, X., Cicchinelli, L. F., & Williams, J. M., (2011). Classroom assessment for student learning: Impact on elementary school mathematics in the central region. Final Report: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
59. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American psychologist, 54(3), 182.
60. Schacter, D. L., Chiao, J. Y., & Mitchell, J. P. (2003). The seven sins of memory: Implications for self. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1001, 226–239.
61. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., … Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314.
62. Shepard, L. A. (2007). Will commercialism enable or destroy formative assessment. In C. A., Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Shepard, L. A., Penuel, W. R., & Davidson, K. L. (2017). Design principles for new systems of assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(6), 47–52.
64. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153–189.
65. Spillane, J. P. (2002). Local theories of teacher changes: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 377–420.
66. Spillane, J. P., & Miele, D. B. (2007). Evidence in practice: A framing of the terrain. In P. A., Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: The 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part I. (pp. 46–73). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
67. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68. Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114, 583–626.
69. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4), 66–78.
70. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
71. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
72. Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. J. (2012). Quality instruction and quality formative assessment: The same or different? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, Canada.
73. Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. J. (2015). The fidelity of formative assessment implementation: issues of breadth and quality. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 140–116.
74. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods Thousand Oaks: Sage.