Integrating Assessment with Learning: What Will It Take to Make It Work?

The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 53-82

  Wiliam, Dylan ^a   Thompson, Marnie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b RPM Data   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85142848523     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315086545-3     Document Type: Chapter

References (70)

1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.
2. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
3. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7-73.
4. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King's College London School of Education.
5. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2004a). Classroom assessment is not (necessarily) formative assessment (and vice-versa). In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rdyearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2004b). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rdyearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2005a). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 249-261.
8. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2005b). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning. London: Sage.
9. Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In R. W. Tyler (Ed.), Educational evaluation: New roles, new means. The 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2. (Vol. 69, pp. 26-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Borko, H. (1997). New forms of classroom assessment: Implications for staff development. Theory Into Practice, 36(4), 231-238.
11. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
12. Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S. F., Flexer, R. J., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers' developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development (Vol. 423). Boulder: University of Colorado, Boulder Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST).
13. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H. G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110-119). Occasionnel Paper 54, Bielefeld, Germany, University of Bielefeld, Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik.
14. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Trans.). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. American Journal of Education, 97, 65-108.
16. Clarke, S. (2003). Enriching feedback in the primary classroom. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
17. Clements, D. H. (2002). Linking research and curriculum development. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 599-630). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Cobb, P., McClain, K., Lamberg, T. d. S., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers' instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24.
19. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
20. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
21. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Education.
22. Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108, 346-369.
23. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: Report on the imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
24. English, L. D., Jones, G., Lesh, R., Tirosh, D., & Bussi, M. B. (2002). Future issues and directions in international mathematics education research. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 787-812). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
26. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
28. Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., & Herman, R. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29. Garmston, R., & Wellman, B. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gor-don Publishers.
30. Gitomer, D. H., Latham, A. S., & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31. Gritz, R. M., & MaCurdy, T. (1992). Participation in low-wage labor markets by young men (Discussion paper). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
32. Hanushek, E. A. (2004). Some simple analytics of school quality (NBER working paper No. W10229). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
33. Hess, F. M., Rotherham, A. J., & Walsh, K. (Eds.). (2004). A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
34. Jepsen, C., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). What is the tradeoff between smaller classes and teacher quality? (NBER working paper No. 9205). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
35. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2003). Using student work to support professional development in elementary mathematics: A CTP working paper. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
36. Kilpatrick, J. (2003, March). Teachers' knowledge of mathematics and its role in teacher preparation and professional development programs. Paper presented at the German-American Science and Math Education Research Conference, Kiel, Germany.
37. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
38. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.
39. Levin, H. M. (1972). The costs of inadequate education. In Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity -United States Senate (Ed.), Toward equal educational opportunity (pp. 171-186). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
40. Lewis, C. C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
41. Linn, R. L. (1995). Assessment-based reform: Challenges to educational measurement (Report No. PIC-ANG1). Princeton, NJ: William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series, Educational Testing Service.
42. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Marshall, B. (2004). Goals or horizons-the conundrum of progression in English: Or a possible way of understanding formative assessment in English. Curriculum Journal, 15(2), 101-113.
44. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation's educational goals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
45. 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.
46. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2006). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006-453). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
47. National Commission on Mathematics and Science for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late. Washington, DC: Author.
48. National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: Author.
49. Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155-175.
50. Newton, P. (2003). The defensibility of national curriculum assessment in England. Research Papers in Education, 18(2), 101-127.
51. Nyquist, J. B. (2003). The benefits of reconstruing feedback as a larger system of formative assessment: A meta-analysis. Unpublished Master of Science thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
52. Perrenoud, P. (1991). Towards a pragmatic approach to formative evaluation. In P. Weston (Ed.), Assessment of pupil achievement (pp. 79-101). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
53. Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 85-102.
54. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
55. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4-13.
56. Reeves, J., McCall, J., & MacGilchrist, B. (2001). Change leadership: Planning, conceptualization and perception. In J. MacBeath & P. Mortimore (Eds.), Improving school effectiveness (pp. 122-137). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
57. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
58. Sandoval, W., Deneroff, V., & Franke, M. L. (2002, April). Teaching, as learning, as inquiry: Moving beyond activity in the analysis of teaching practice. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
59. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
60. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
61. Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271-286.
62. Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved student achievement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the States (Vol. 2, pp. 81-98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Torrance, H. (1993). Formative assessment: Some theoretical problems and empirical questions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 23(3), 333-343.
64. Tyler, J. H., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2000). Estimating the labor market signaling value of the GED (Research Brief). Boston: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning & Literacy.
65. Wiliam, D. (1999, May). A template for computer-aided diagnostic analyses of test outcome data. Paper presented at 25th annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Bled, Slovenia.
66. Wiliam, D. (2003a). National curriculum assessment: How to make it better. Research Papers in Education, 18(2), 129-136.
67. Wiliam, D. (2003b). The impact of educational research on mathematics education. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 469-488). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
68. Wiliam, D. & Black, P. J. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.
69. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 11(1), 49-65.
70. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 173-209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.