WestEd >> >> April 2013

Understanding Formative Assessment Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory

by Elise Trumbull and Andrea Lash

This paper explores formative assessment, a process intended to yield Increasingly, educators are calling for education assessment systems information about student learning—information that teachers can that are more balanced, and that use to shape instruction to meet students’ needs and that students yield useful information for a vari- can use to better understand and advance their learning. This pur- ety of education purposes, from how to shape ongoing instruction pose—promoting learning by informing instruction—distinguishes in the classroom to accountability it from other kinds of student assessment, such as diagnostic, which decisions made at the state level (Darling-Hammond & Pecheone, is used to identify students who have special learning needs, or sum- 2010; Pellegrino, 2006; Wilson mative, which is used by teachers to form final­ judgments about & Draney, 2004; Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). They what students have learned by the end of a course, or is used at the are also calling for coherent sys- state level for the purpose of evaluating schools. tems, in which assessments at all levels (from classroom to state) This paper comes at a time in the number of individuals who would be aligned with the same education when this last purpose, meet grade-level standards; test learning goals and views of what constitutes learning and would school accountability, has been results of individual students are produce relevant information dominating assessment use for aggregated into reports of school more than a quarter of a century about student learning over time and district progress, reports (Shepard, 2006). Since implemen- (Herman, 2010; Pellegrino, 2006). that are useful for district- and tation of No Child Left Behind in The purpose of this paper is to help 2001, state departments of edu- state-level decision-makers. But readers understand the impor- cation have assessed students while such tests may identify tance and potential of formative annually in English l­anguage students who lack the knowledge assessment as a key component of arts and mathematics with tests and skills expected for their grade that survey a broad spectrum level, these achievement tests do of content. Although each stu- not identify why students are not This paper is one in dent is assessed, these tests are proficient; the tests are not linked not intended to help identify an a series produced by closely enough to classroom ­individual student’s learning instruction and curriculum to WestEd on the topic of needs or to provide information that can be used to modify sub- identify what misconceptions stu- formative assessment. sequent instruction. Instead, the dents hold or what skills they are tests serve an accounting or mon- missing, information that could itoring function, such as counting help guide instruction.

1 WestEd >>

an instructional approach that of instruction—careful attention espouses the use of assessments focused upon specific aspects Formative assessment is to gauge students’ progress of a student’s developing under- defined by its purpose toward mastering a learning goal standing” (p. 187) in order to (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, make decisions about next steps which is to help form, 1971). Bloom suggested that, in instruction (see also Heritage, or shape, a student’s rather than waiting to assess stu- Kim, Vendlinski, & Herman, dents at the end of a unit (common 2009). To facilitate this process, learning during the practice at the time), teachers use the teacher needs to use practices learning process. assessments “as an integral part that will reveal not only whether of the instructional process to a student appears to have mas- identify individual learning dif- tered a concept but also how he ficulties and prescribe remedia- or she understands it (Pryor & a balanced and coherent assess- tion procedures” (Guskey, 2010, Crossouard, 2005). The assess- ment system—a component that p. 108). According to Guskey, ment practices need to be so well has been somewhat eclipsed by the Bloom borrowed the term “for- grounded in the instructional focus on assessment for account- mative” from Scriven (1967), who process that the information ability purposes. The paper first used it to describe program evalu- they reveal will identify whether describes formative assessment ation activities conducted during and how instruction should be and its key features. It then turns the course of a program to give adapted to advance students’ to learning theory and measure- feedback on the program’s prog- understandings. H­eritage, who ment theory and their implica- ress so that it could be improved has made significant contribu- tions for effective use of formative if need be. tions to the theory and practice assessment. Subsequent to that, of formative assessment, empha- and prior to the conclusion, is Formative assessment does not sizes the close linkage—if not a brief review of summaries of take the form of a particular research on how formative assess- the inseparability—of formative instrument or task (Moss, 2008), ment affects student learning. assessment, teaching, and learn- but is defined by its purpose ing (Heritage, 2010a). (Shepard, 2009), which is to help form, or shape, a student’s learn- In theory, any assessment—includ- Features of Formative ing during the learning process. ing a commercially developed Assessment in Some suggest that formative test—could be used for formative Classroom Instruction assessment is better described as purposes. However, as Pellegrino a process (“using assessment for- et al. (2001) caution, using the Black and Wiliam (1998a) char- matively” [Frohbeiter, Greenwald, same assessments for different acterize formative assessment as Stecher, & Schwartz, 2011, p. 3]) purposes tends to lessen their “all those activities undertaken by than as a type of assessment (see effectiveness for each purpose (see teachers and/or by their students also McManus, 2008). ­Erickson also Shavelson, Black, Wiliam, [that] provide information to be (2007) has used the term “proxi- & Coffey, 2007). For example, it used as feedback to modify the mal formative assessment” to would be difficult to design an teaching and learning activities indicate that it is an activity close assessment for school account- in which they are engaged” (p. 7). to instruction (Ruiz-Primo, Shav- ability systems that elicits student The goal of any modifications elson, Hamilton, & Klein, 2002). performance at the level necessary to instruction is enhanced stu- Erickson (2007) defines it as for fine-grained understanding of dent learning. It is often claimed “the continual ‘taking stock’ that individual learning needs without that the practice of formative teachers do by paying firsthand compromising the scope neces- assessment is rooted in Bloom’s observational attention to stu- sary for an accountability measure concept of “mastery learning,” dents during the ongoing course or without making excessive time

2 WestEd >> WestEd These exchanges have the potential potential have the exchanges These students).commonly, between (or, students and teachers less between exchanges of classroom form the takes commonly most et (Herman tion instruc with integrated highly often is assessment Formative purpose. formative a serve can learning students’ in ments improve promote to used be can that and taught being whatabout is think way students the uncover to teachers allows that activity tional instruc Any look like. ment should assess of formative instance single for what a no prescription be can 2011). &Li, (Ruiz-Primo There evidence learning desired the elicit to likely most aform take it should also, process; instructional the in point aspecified and targets, ing learn relevant the assessed, being students particular the to tailored 2009, p. student(s)the &Wiliam, (Black and situation instructional the on “contingent” highly is assessment 2012). Formative (Supovitz, hold may student the misconceptions any and dent’s processes, thought stu the goals, learning certain toward astudent’sabout progress something 2005). it Ideally, reveals 2010a; (Heritage, Shepard, students and teachers for information able action provide to needs assessment purpose, To aformative serve assessed. been what has learn better to order in need might whatabout astudent think help would ateacher that to instruction to yield information instruction to enough closely pled not cou generally are assessments Such accountability scoring. and administration for demands

12). be Thus, it should

a l., 2006) and l., 2006) and ------ter at hand and to frame feedback feedback frame to and at hand ter mat subject the about of thinking way students’ into insight gain to is for ateacher The challenge 2007). &Timperley, (Hattie goals the do to reach to need what they and such goals, toward progress their of learning, goals the clarify dents Sadler, 1989). helps stu Feedback &Timperley,gap (Hattie 2007; ways the close to identify student helps the level and developmental right at the dent when it targeted is stu for the effective it most is and level of understanding, desired the and understanding current astudent’s gap between the about information whenrole it provides on aformative takes Feedback &Timperley,(Hattie 2007, p. understanding” or performance of one’s aspects regarding itself) assessment the peer, parent, agent (e.g., by an vided teacher, pro “information is Feedback 2010, &Long, Moss, p. assessment process (Brookhart, formative of the components the feedback the “linchpin” that links 1998b). Wiliam, have called Some & (Black other each to feedback providing as well as evidence, and reasoning, ideas, with responding and other of each questions own their asking at proficient become to mentor students also can 2004). Teachers &Wiliam, (Black or instructional modifications feedback through on track back learning steer and conceptions mis counter to aposition in is ateacher thinking, students’ into 2011).(Ruiz-Primo, Given insights opportunities learning as serve way, this exchanges the In revision. and examination to open thus and explicit thinking students’ make to

41).

81). - - - - - students during class may be for for may be class during students to questions informal A teacher’s (Shavelson lesson the et to prior planned and formal be or may spontaneous and ­informal tioning during instruction may be (title).assessment” Teachers’ ques and epicenter of instruction “the as questioning teacher to refer (2011) Heritage and Heritage Primo & Li, 2013). &Li, Primo (Ruiz- needed particularly is time over what impact with and used is how feedback documenting tings) set (not laboratory classrooms in (2009) Research identify. Wiliam and Black that challenge the how just meet to done clarify to be to yet much remains history; research alengthy complex, with and large The is topic of feedback 2009). Wiliam, & (Black goals learning specific move helps toward them that serve aformative purpose. in students’ learningcan promote improvements and that canbeusedto about what isbeingtaught the way students think allows teachers to uncover instructional activitythat should looklike. Any formative assessment a singleinstance of prescription for what There canbeno >> April 2013

al., 2008).al., - -

3 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

to instruction, there is a concep- Exhibit 1. Some Dimensions on Which Formative Assessment tual question as to whether for- May Vary mative assessment is more like

1. Informal vs. formal instruction or more like assess- ment, as traditionally conceived. 2. Immediate feedback vs. delayed feedback Some writers (e.g., Heritage 2010a) situate formative assess- 3. Curriculum embedded vs. stand-alone ment within a paradigm of learn- ing and instruction; others (e.g., 4. Spontaneous vs. planned Phelan et al., 2009) have placed it 5. Individual vs. group squarely within a measurement paradigm. The following sections 6. Verbal vs. nonverbal examine formative assessment within each paradigm because 7. Oral vs. written both contain concepts that are 8. Graded/scored vs. ungraded/unscored helpful to understanding effective use of formative assessment. 9. Open-ended response vs. closed/constrained response

10. Teacher initiated/controlled vs. student initiated/controlled Formative Assessment

11. Teacher and student(s) vs. peers Within a Theory of Learning and Instruction 12. Process oriented vs. task/product oriented Formative assessment is not 13. Brief vs. extended necessarily associated with any 14. Scaffolded (teacher supported) vs. independently performed particular theory of learning (Wiliam, 2010). However, current conceptualizations of formative the purpose of checking certain students make entries in their sci- assessment are typically rooted students’ learning, or for probing ence notebooks for the teacher to in a sociocultural constructivist more deeply to gather evidence examine later. view of learning (Heritage, 2010a; that will yield better understand- Pellegrino et al., 2001; Shepard, Formative assessments can be ing of their thinking. At the other 2000). This theory of learning is described along a number of end of the spectrum of formative supported by research (Pellegrino different dimensions. Some of assessment are more formal pro- et al., 2001), is most compatible the most salient dimensions are cedures, such as specific prompts with current goals of education, listed in Exhibit 1 above. While and best explains the processes that require a written response formative assessments may vary of effective formative assessment and that are embedded in instruc- on a number of dimensions, “the (Heritage, 2010b; Pellegrino et al., tion at key points to help identify crucial feature is that evidence is 2001; Shepard, 2000). the next steps needed to advance evoked, interpreted in terms of student learning (Furtak et al., learning needs, and used to make From a sociocultural constructiv- 2008). These embedded tasks may adjustments [to instruction] to ist perspective, learners are seen be so integrated with instruction better meet those learning needs” as actively constructing knowl- as to seem natural and unobtru- (Wiliam, 2006, p. 3). edge and understanding through sive, or they may be given to stu- cognitive processes (Piaget, 1954) dents at the end of a lesson, as a As noted earlier, because forma- within a social and cultural con- separate activity, such as when tive assessment is so tightly linked text (Greenfield, 2009; Rogoff,

4 WestEd >> WestEd space between the level at which the between space developmental the is The ZPD learning. or potential targeted student’s the and understanding astudent’s actual gap between the for understanding useful as theorists assessment by formative (1978),Vygotsky invoked been has (ZPD),ment” from taken aconcept develop The “zone of proximal 1999). 2003; Koschmann, Levitt, & (Ash of learners a community as collaborate teachers and dents stu where aclassroom in such as setting, asocial within activity” productive “joint as to referred by what Vygotsky enhanced is ing learn that is theory sociocultural Wenger, 1998). of assumption One 1991;& Gallimore, Vygotsky, 1978; (e.g., peer) teacher, (Tharp parent, expertise greater with by others guided context, social interactive an but in individuals as not only over time, adomain in standing under and developto knowledge seen are Students assessment. tive of forma models to applied widely been has and theory learning tivist of construc aspects sociocultural of the conceptualizations rent for cur much basis of the forms (1962,The work of Vygotsky 1978) room instruction. class in assessment formative of use for the have implications development and learning about 1978). understandings These 1985; Bruner, 2000; Vygotsky, et (Bransford learning own their regulate to necessary skills develop as and 2000); & Cocking, Brown, (Bransford, knowledge) prior (i.e., know already what they on new knowledge building as 1998, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978); ­i ng the metacognitive metacognitive the ng

al., al., ------share responsibility for learning for learning responsibility share students and teachers which in one is of learning theory tivist construc sociocultural by the evoked of classroom The kind Assessment Formative in Students The Roles of Teachers and same content, and so forth. forth. so content, and same anew way in the to tent or returns new con with continues gressing; pro is student’show learning the re-assesses needed; as instruction modifies and understanding for supports offers responding; is student how the content; assesses introduces teacher the as tion, indistinguishable from instruc almost is assessment formative case, this In performance. or prompt learning to as so tion instruc adjust and/or student the to feedback give to order in tion instruc to how responds astudent about information uses teacher the explicitly—as or implicitly process—whether of this part is Lier, 2010). assessment Formative & van Walqui 2009; & Wiliam, (Black goal of the attainment aid to support) (i.e.,folding learning scaf providing goal, learning the and student the between mediator a as serves teacher the teaching, In 2003). & Levitt, (Ash goal learning a reaches student the that ensure to jointly working are student and teacher is, that activity, ductive of joint pro example a particular is ZPD the teacher. Work within other, competent more a such as a from assistance with task same or complete the handle dent can stu level at the which the and independently or complete atask a problem handle can a student ------on each to do all they can to to can they do to all on each and with rests learning “[S]ince the responsibility for (2009) observe, Wiliam and Black (Clark, 2012). skills enumerated As previously the ways,pendent in engaging, in increasingly inde by learning own their in agents active be to expected are Students et (Bransford needed as self-correct and ing learn own their regulate who can learners self-propelled pendent, of inde and learning intentional development the to of critical are 2009). These &Chappuis, Chappuis, Arter, 2010b; Heritage, 2000; Stiggins, et 1998b, Bransford 2009; 2010;(Andrade, &Wiliam, Black forward moving learning their keep to strategies appropriate in (5) and goals, ing (4) standard, (3) judge their own work against a a (3) work own against their judge task, of alearning demands the (2) identify understanding, and knowledge own their of state the (1) it help to use to students judge instruction, teachers are expected future plan to evidence assessment using to addition In exist. gaps ing to get to at ing ways of think students’ probe to but also something, have learned determine to not only upon teachers ment calls assess Formative assessment. including engaging in formative 1994;& Campione, 1994), Rogoff, new (Brown some may to be that roles in of learners, community interactive of an part as together working students and teacher see one would 1996). classroom, this In 2010a; &Gipps, (Heritage, Tunstall the learner, it is incumbent it incumbent is learner, the

al., 2000). 2000). al., grasp and set learn set and grasp ­me why whether >> April 2013

tacognitive skills skills tacognitive select and engage engage and select both any learning learning any the teacher teacher the students

al., al., ------5 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

“productive conversations about successively more sophisticated student learning needs” (Ross, ways of thinking about an idea Formative assessment 2006, p. 9). that follow one another as students places demands on learn: [The descriptions] lay out in Some forms of formative assess- words and examples what it means students to take a ment require students not only to move toward more expert under- to be active agents in their own more serious approach standing” (Wilson & Bertenthal, learning but also to be, at times, 2006, p. 3). Learning progressions to learning and to facilitators of each other’s learn- help teachers decide where to take ing through a process of peer work harder. instruction next, based on what assessment. Peer assessment has they have observed students being students serving as instructional able to do independently and with resources to each other in much support (i.e., within the ZPD). mitigate the impact of any failures the way that collaborative learn- of the other” (p. 7). International ing does (Black & Wiliam, 2009). Learning progressions are studies on the impact of formative Students’ feedback to each other intended to help teachers organize assessment practices show that during peer assessment is another the curricular topics associated such practices can indeed support source of information about their with standards. In some cases, students’ ability to take responsi- level of understanding (Black & learning progressions can be con­ bility for and regulate their own Wiliam, 2009). For students to structed logically, with refer­ence learning, but that this occurs adopt such roles requires that to what experts in a domain per- only when students understand they have a clear understanding of ceive as a necessary sequence. For that assessment can serve pur- learning goals and performance example, in a mathematics curric- poses other than summative pur- criteria. Some suggest having ulum, addition logically precedes poses (Organization for Economic teachers and students jointly con- multiplication because multipli- Co-operation and Development, struct assessment criteria in order cation is repeated addition and 2005). Perrenoud (1991) notes to increase the reliability of peer because a child is unlikely to have that formative assessment places assessment (Topping, 2010) or avoided learning addition before demands on students to take a having teachers model the pro- being able to understand multipli- more serious approach to learn- cess for students in order to facili- cation (Leahy & Wiliam, 2011). In ing and to work harder—demands tate their participation (Black & other cases, the “logical” progres- Wiliam, 2009, p. 25). they may not happily embrace; sion may not capture a learner’s likely developmental path. In addi- however, when they do, they may The Role of Learning tion, learning progressions may be their own best sources of feed- Progressions in vary to some degree from student back about their own learning. Formative Assessment to student and from country to Student self-assessment does con- country. For these reasons, there tribute to higher student achieve- A learning progression is a kind is no substitute for empirical vali- ment, and it is most likely to do of developmental model (Harris, dation of a learning progression. so when students are trained in Bauer, & Redman, 2008) that using sets of performance c­ riteria, describes “the trajectory of learn- Learning progressions or trajecto- such as rubrics, to evaluate their ing in a domain” over an extended ries can help teachers to anticipate work or when they receive other period of time—months to years and identify common miscon- direct instruction on self-assess- (Heritage, 2008, p. 3). Learning ceptions students may have and, ment (Ross, 2006). While the progressions, also known as “learn- thus, to shape feedback—which, self-assessments of students may ing trajectories” (Sztajn, Confrey, in turn, reshapes learning (Sztajn not always be in sync with their Wilson, & Edgington, 2012) and et al., 2012). Sztajn et al. write of teachers’ assessments of them, dis- “progress maps” (Hess, 2010), have “learning trajectory based instruc- crepancies can form the basis of been defined as “descriptions of tion” as a promising approach

6 WestEd >> WestEd ing been tested with only eight eight only with tested been ing progression is preliminary, hav learning this however, that tion, (Barrett et (Barrett 3 2and grades in measurement for linear progression a learning validated Recently, researchers context. in of differences because somewhat risky is such research of basis on the generalizing and time-consuming, complexis and progressionLearning research of mathematics. ent subdomains differ to related progressions ing develop to of learn dozens efforts (2012) different several to refer et Sztajn experts. by domain identified as progressions logical on based or are validated ically empir have been progressions the of or all some review,her whether et Flows" [DiRanna ("Conceptual science in progressions own their develop to use can teachers that a tool as well as language, oral sample seven ummarizes and science, history, ematics, math in progressions learning (2008) Heritage terrain. the to faithful is that amap to opposed as way of helping developeuristic—a learning about think teachers tive atenta as viewed be to needs one available any almost so validated, empirically have been progressions Very few learning (p. instruction” their element for unifying the as serves trajectory the perspective, tory] trajec [a from learning learning around teaching organize teachers when disciplines, despite that, we contend done: “Overall, viously away in not pre together theory learning and teaching brings that

al., 2008]). It is not clear, from 2008]). It not clear,al., is from h ­ ­ s ­men

t in a given domain— agiven t in a l., 2012). They cau

152).

al. al. ------framing of learning progressions. progressions. of learning framing the way of approaching standard no currently is There students. students” (Corcoran, Mosher, & (Corcoran, students” of most part the on proficiency to lead would that experiences sequence(s) of learning ticular par the about and school in ing of achiev capable are students what about most of evidence body asolid be should end result the rigorously, and vigorously sued - work pur is this conclude, “If Policy Research in Education for Center at the Researchers progressions. learning on done be to remains Much research path. common the who from veer for learners instruction and back feed differentiated providing to step anecessary is this students; in differences observe they as ers by teach annotated be can paths (Mosher, 2011). common These learn students many ways that the with consistent are that paths tify able iden to be will educators that believe many goal, plex learning com for any progression a single be to not likely is there Whereas 2012,(Shavelson p. &Kurpius, construction” new-knowledge and knowledge prior students’ with dent on instruction interacting but depen inevitable mentally not develop are “[p]rogressions Moreover, 2009). Shavelson, 2012; & & Kurpius, Steedle et (Harris path follow alinear necessarily not does development adomain in cognitive shows that Research (p. detail” level of and of misconceptions, use size, grain span, in “varied efforts progressions resulting from these et Sztajn

al. (2012)al. the note that 148).

al., 2008; Shavelson Shavelson 2008; al.,

15). ------

ing progressions. ing instructional steps. of next planning their and dents, stu to feedback appropriate tally developmen about decisions their assessment, formative through learning of student explorations teachers’ may guide progressions The hypothesized assessments. ing and interpreting formative conduct in teachers to helpful be to likely is progressions ing of learn concept the domain, academic every in skills and major concepts for the sequences developmental validated cally not empiri are there Even though develop the with of howedge proceed to knowl may yield researchers, and of teachers by teams research action as well as research, mental (2012)Kurpius experi that believe Rogat, 2009, p. ment theory may ment theory of measure on principles based practices traditional which ways in as well as assessment, formative tualizing and designing effective concep to may contribute general in measurement about thinking established which ways in cusses 2011).(Bennett, dis section This assessment formative guide should principles measurement accepted so, what to degree howif and and, whether clear not altogether it is ment somewhat contested; is assess formative to regard with theory The of role measurement Theory Measurement Within Formative Assessment to formative assessment. The The assessment. formative to ­men t of defensible learn

8). Shavelson and >> April 2013 not be applicable applicable be ------

7 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

settings would result in the same the interpretations would focus judgment about the student on whether a student’s test perfor- As in other forms (Haertel, 2006). Validity has to mance indicated that the student of assessment, the do with the extent to which the had acquired an adequate level of interpretation of a student’s per- knowledge, rather than focusing primary activity for the formance and the actions based on the nature of the student’s rea- person using formative on it are appropriate and justified soning or the patterns of thinking (Messick, 1989). Are the decisions displayed by the student. It is this assessment results is to made on the basis of students’ per- last type of information that gener- reason from evidence—to formance suitable and accurate? ally is useful to teachers in under- Fairness requires that validity standing what students know and make an inference about does not change from one student what they still need to learn. what a student knows group to another (Pellegrino et al., Exploration of the qualities of 2001). For example, are the inter- and can do, based on inferences derived from forma- pretations of student performance tive assessment is in its infancy. assessment information as appropriate for students who Still to be investigated are such are English learners as they are that is not perfect and issues as how the types of strat- for students who are native speak- egies that teachers use in forma- may be, to some degree, ers of English? tive assessment affect the quality incomplete or imprecise. Measurement theory also provides of evidence elicited from students, statistical methods to assess the whether the strategies are inter- qualities of inferences. In large- changeable with regard to the instructional decisions to which section concludes with a discussion scale assessments of achieve- they lead, and whether the strate- of why language and culture should ment—such as statewide testing for gies differ in effectiveness for dif- be considered when planning and school accountability—reliability, ferent students (Brookhart, 2003, implementing formative assess- validity, and fairness are examined 2005; Shepard, 2009). ment, so as not to bias results. in statistical studies that are based on measurement models about the There are good reasons to believe As in other forms of assessment, factors that influence student per- that concerns for reliability, valid- the primary activity for the per- formance on tests. These statisti- ity, and fairness are mitigated son using formative assessment cal methods would not be helpful by the nature of how formative results is to reason from evi- in formative assessment conducted assessment is carried out. With dence—to make an inference in classrooms, for a couple of rea- formative assessments, teachers about what a student knows and sons. First, they require perfor- can evaluate students frequently can do, based on assessment infor- mance information from a large via different strategies that can mation that is not perfect and may number of students, on a large be tailored to the particular stu- be, to some degree, incomplete number of tasks, possibly from dents (Durán, 2011). In forma- or imprecise (Pellegrino et al., multiple occasions. In classrooms, tive assessment, Shavelson et al. 2001). Measurement theory iden- a teacher might use a particular (2007) argue, issues of reliability tifies desired qualities of the infer- assessment technique simply to and validity are addressed over ences made from assessments: evaluate a few students in a brief time, as teachers collect ongoing reliability, validity, and fairness. segment of a class discussion. data about student performance Reliability has to do with the con- Second, the statistical analyses and, as appropriate, make correc- sistency of the ­assessment infor- generally are built on theories of tions to their previous inferences. mation—for example, whether test interpretation that ­summarize Teachers are in an ideal position replication of an assessment at the quantity, rather than the quali- to adjust their methods to probe different times or in different ties, of student knowledge. Thus, information that will resolve any

8 WestEd >> WestEd the interpretation of assessment of assessment interpretation the of translation effective present: be to element needs ment, a fourth decisions and actions. ­performance to instructional et (Pellegrino linked have been elements three on how these well depend will assessment the from derived of inferences quality the and assessment, formative ing includ of assessment, instance any in present equally are ments ele these explicit, made are they 2001, pp. et (Pellegrino gathered dence evi the from inferences deriving of and sense for making rationale and of learning; evidence gathering of purpose for the evaluated and scored, observed, be can formance per students’ which in or activities observations, of levels development; different at knowledge their organize they how and domain academic an in develop competence students cognition student of amodel assessment: of type any in present ments ele three shows the that triangle assessment an is heuristic useful One students. from information high-quality obtain to efforts their in teachers to useful be can design of assessment principles of fundamental understanding An Design of Assessment Principles Useful do. ways they the respond why to students as hypotheses ing compet or test to discrepancies links, the three elements of the of elements the three the links, and explicit, makes opment that devel assessment to approach One

al., 2001).al., assess formative In interpretation , which describes how describes , which

44–51). or not Whether which are the tasks tasks the are which , which is the the is , which

al., al., ------formative assessment activities in in activities assessment formative when developing useful 2008) are et on Harris part in (based of questions series The following text. extended read to ability is, KSA—that non-target by the also concept—but mathematical the of knowledge is, KSA—that get tar the by not only influenced be would task on the Performance of text. pages many in couched is solve that aproblem students by having concept mathematical of a understanding ate students’ evalu to designed atask be would example it. An from derived tions of interpreta validity the and fairness assessment’s the limiting assessment, of the targets actual the with proficiency onstrating dem from student prevent the can KSAs non-target with proficiency of lack such acase, In assessed. being ostensibly concepts the to not related skill other or some skill of language but also KSAs target of the not only evidence eliciting may end up task the and KSAs, (non-target) unwanted additional, on may call assessment, mative a for including task, assessment an (KSAs). Sometimes abilities and skills, knowledge, certain show and task the in participate to student for any opportunity the or reduce not preclude it does that ensure to task assessment posed pro any examine they then, ing; student learn of aspects specified about ajudgment make to needed is that evidence of the nature the identify developers assessment process, this In assessments. fair and valid for building framework et Steinberg, & Almond, 2003; Zhang 2003; Zhang &Almond, Steinberg, (ECD) (Mislevy, Design Centered Evidence is triangle assessment

al., 2010).al., a provides ECD

al., al., ------for avoiding suchfor problems. avoiding suggestions offer and happen can shows how section this following The backgrounds. cultural ticular inferences about student learning: student about inferences the likelihood of making valid increase and KSAs of unwanted intrusion the minimize that tools and processes develop assessment help teachers also but can general, » » » iar to students from par from students to iar unfami by content or processes and/or language complex unnecessarily by unwittingly introduced monly com most are KSAs Non-target » » » » » » » » » student’s level of KSAs? student’s level of KSAs? the determine to order in need I would responses) and mances perfor of students’ features (i.e., evidence observable What introduce? process assessment formative of type this might response) of for speed need language, complex (e.g., unnecessarily are that KSAs What with regard to these KSAs? KSAs? these to regard with see to expect I would jectory) tra (i.e., path learning mental cognitive/develop the is What of adomain)? part aparticular in competency toward understanding cesses, pro skills, (e.g., knowledge, KSA(s)What assess to do Iwish target KSAs? target of non- impact the minimize to students, it inclusive for all make to process assessment tive my forma Imodify How can evidence? this elicit will that of tasks characteristics the are What ­l >> April 2013 not wanted wanted ------9 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

Language and Culture in of English spoken at home, the students who are English lan- Formative Assessment purposes for which their parents guage learners (Kopriva & Sexton, use language, the influence of 2011). However, having good infor- Language is the principal medium another language or culture, their mation about a student’s level for teaching and learning (Bailey, prior knowledge and past experi- of English proficiency is critical Burkett, & Freeman, 2008), for ence (related to opportunities to to planning appropriate forma- mentally representing and think- learn), their socioeconomic status, tive assessment processes. Abedi ing through problems (Durán, and a host of other factors (Heath, (2010) and others recommend that 1985; Lager, 2006), and for gain- 1983; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; teachers use the formative process ing an understanding of how Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). itself to gather and make note of other people think (Bronkart, information about students’ levels 1995). As Bailey et al. (2008) write, When educators consider the role of English knowledge on a contin- “Classrooms are first and foremost, of language in assessment, the uous basis. A teacher is in a better language environments” (p. 608). needs of students who are English position than an outside specialist However, teachers are generally language learners may come to observe language use in a range not educated to think linguisti- quickly to mind. These students of circumstances and to make cally (Bailey et al., 2008), to see are learning a new language at judgments about a student’s abil- how language is an integral ele- the same time they are learning ity to use language as a medium of ment in all teaching and learning. content in that language, learning learning and assessment. Hence, language is often a kind of the specialized discourse of the silent partner in instruction and different subject-matter domains, In written assessments, it is advis- assessment. This is unfortunate and learning how to use language able to avoid high-level vocabulary because good teaching depends as a tool for learning and for dem- not related to the learning goal on a teacher’s considerable knowl- onstrating their learning (Abedi, being assessed, eliminate com- edge of language development and 2010, 2011; Bailey et al., 2008; Lee, plex syntax, and avoid the passive the use of language in learning— Santau, & Maerten-Rivera, 2011; voice (Abedi, 2006)—for any stu- a grounding in the fundamentals Trumbull & Solano-Flores, 2011). dent, not just for English language of educational linguistics (Wong With these issues in mind, teach- learners. (See Trumbull & Solano- Fillmore & Snow, 2000). ers will want to evaluate their Flores [2011] for a list of linguistic formative assessment practices features to avoid, with explanatory Students’ responses to forma- with a view to reducing language examples.) Unnecessary language tive assessments, which teachers demands, providing choices in the complexity is probably the great- expect to interpret as evidence of ways they expect students to dem- est source of non-target KSAs for students’ content knowledge or onstrate understanding of a con- a great many students (Trumbull skill, may be affected by students’ cept, and rewording the language & Solano-Flores, 2011). In spoken relative familiarity with the forms of an assessment when apparently language, there are opportunities and uses of language in the assess- needed. They can also ask students for a teacher to clarify language, ment tasks. For example, a student directly about how they, the stu- and he or she may want to model may not understand the grammar dents, interpret assessment ques- language that is slightly beyond a (form) of a question or may lack tions or tasks (Basterra, 2011; Lee student’s level so as to encourage the skills to mount an evidence- et al., 2011; Spinelli, 2008). A stu- language growth (by working in based argument (one use of lan- dent’s difficulty in interpreting the the ZPD). guage) to respond to the question meaning of an assessment question adequately. The language forms is itself a clue to the presence of one Students who are poor readers or and uses found in students’ class- or more non-target KSAs. have a developmental language rooms, in both instruction and problem, but who (given appro- assessment tasks, may be more Formative assessment activities priate supports) have the intellec- familiar or less familiar to stu- can be designed to be credible tual capacity to learn the taught dents, depending on the dialects sources of learning evidence with curriculum, are also penalized

10 WestEd >> WestEd student and with parents. with and student the evaluating specialists with share ment, or he she can which assess formative from needs, student's the about evidence tant have impor will teacher the tion, level of interven ahigher need 2011).Klingner, astudent Should 2010;Disabilities, Hoover & Joint Committee on Learning (National progress tor student moni to basis on acontinuing used be can and contexts dents’ others, because they may not be may not be they because others, than task for this prepared less may students some or culture, and/ home language on their based But, work. domains ­subject-matter of different discourses the and discourse how classroom learning of2011). task the face students All &Solano-Flores, able (Trumbull or accept appropriate what is about assumptions culture-based is, underpinnings—that tural cul has process education the in of language use Any fair. and valid be to is assessment mative for if considered ment, be must assess to orientation their as well as use, language to orientation students’ in differences Cultural is assessment processes precisely because such assessment formative in value see students of these education the in 2011).Hoover &Klingner, Experts &Newsome, 2006; (Figueroa ers learn language English also are and disability learning based who have alanguage- for students emerges assessment formative in 2011). complex Amore challenge et (Fuchs account into needs their do not take that of language uses assessment and by instructional

al., 2007; Lerner, 2000; Troia, 2007;al., Lerner, 2000; t ­ ailored to the stu the to ailored ------process (Bransford et (Bransford process learning the in language use to how of schooling, purpose the classroom, the in roles social about beliefs their influence backgrounds cultural Students’ script” (Emihovich, 1994). (Emihovich, script” a“cultural effect, in what is, stitute con or informal, formal whether assessment, during communicate for how to expectations the fact, 1992). &Deyhle, Swisher 2008; In Kwon, Tsai, & Solano-Flores, Li, 2005; (Demmert, items or test tests waysdents’ of approaching stu affect to shown been has tion orienta cultural that surprising It not 2000). is &Raeff, Quiroz, (Greenfield, elicit to trying are ers teach that behaviors very the age teacher, mayfor the discour they respect showing and by listening best learn children that believe parents If take. to for teachers step important an may be for children expectations in differences parents’ respecting time, same at the while, parents to expectations school’s the Explaining process. this with skill and develop to comfort time more and modeling teacher more may need children their learning, about conversation evaluative an in engage to when asked mon, and, not com are such conversations families, (Moss, other 2008). In able may do to next be what they or skill aparticular learning in ing progress are how about they dren chil their with talk may routinely parents families, some in example, For assessment. for formative tions have implica of differences kinds 2004). These 1983; Schleppegrell, (Heath, the classroom in reflected are which language, ways of using culture’s dominant the to oriented

al., 2000; 2000; al., ------experiences what they have what they experiences their from how extract to students to demonstrate can teacher the ticipation in discussion. Instead, par students’ or she may suppress he stories, personal discouraging by responds teacher the if a case, such In not separable. integrated, as seen are learning cognitive and social homes, students’ these in 1999). because, is & Hasan, This Diaz-Meza, (Trumbull, instruction or experience from abstracted birds, about or facts observations on focuses that discourse scientific expected the than rather birds, of include sightings that outings of family stories with respond may backgrounds cultural some from children habitat, ticular apar in live that birds name to For when asked 2007). example, &Trumbull, ment (Nelson-Barber assess formative to germane entirely area understanding—an and one’s knowledge demonstrate et Trumbull Greenfield, 2006; Fisch, & Rothstein- Suzuki, Greenfield, 1995; &Gallimore, Goldenberg

previous inferences. corrections to their appropriate, make performance and,as data aboutstudent collect ongoing over time, asteachers validity are addressed issues ofreliability and In formative assessment, al., 2006), when how to al., and and >> April 2013 - - - 11 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

Native American cultures) may Cultural differences may also be avoid answering direct questions associated with differences in Teachers must make in a group of peers because being responses to various forms of feed- any act of formative singled out in front of others is back (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; not common in their cultures and Kaplan, Karabenick, & De Groot, assessment contingent may cause discomfort or confu- 2009; Maehr & Yamaguchi, 2001; on what has been taught sion (Greenfield & Cocking, 1994). Otsuka & Smith, 2005; Trumbull Among Native American groups, a & Rothstein-Fisch, 2011). For and on how students “right/wrong” approach to knowl- example, some students may have responded to the edge is not culturally congruent: be uncomfortable with praise, Many such students have been particularly if it is given pub- teaching, and they must socialized to consider all sides to licly (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; shape modifications to a question and to avoid dichoto- Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, mous (e.g., right/wrong) thinking. instruction in ways that 2008); they may be more moti- Historically, in federal boarding vated by negative feedback and make sense for students schools and (more recently) in class- criticism, at least in part because rooms using scripted basic skills at different developmental of a cultural value of working to programs, Native American stu- meet the expectations of teach- ­levels within particular dents have suffered through direct ers and family (Heine, Takata, & questioning approaches, often domains of study. Lehman, 2000). Teachers need to responding with silence rather observe how their particular stu- than participating in the question/ dents respond to various forms of answer ritual (McCarty, 2002). A feedback in order to tailor feed- learned about birds and record it recent study showed that teachers’ back to those students’ needs. on the board or in their journals oral questioning during discus- (Trumbull et al., 1999). sions was negatively associated Given a basic understanding of with Native American and Alaska how linguistic and cultural fac- Informal questioning, the most Native students’ later mathemat- tors may intersect with forma- common form of formative assess- ics performance (Huang, Nelson- tive assessment processes and ment, may not always be the best Barber, Trumbull, & Sexton, 2011). tasks, educators can be alert to way to assess students who are Likewise, an inquiry approach that sources of non-target KSAs in still learning English or who are requires students to reason aloud, order to achieve what has been from communities where English on demand, about a question may called “cultural validity” in for- is used in ways different from be particularly uncomfortable mative assessment (Solano-Flores those expected in the classroom. for Native American and Alaska & Nelson-Barber, 2001). Cultural Such students may misconstrue Native students who have learned validity is achieved when an the intent of a teacher’s question, at home to observe and mentally assessment takes into consider- may thus respond differently than rehearse any complex task before ation students’ sociocultural back- expected, and may then be mis- attempting public performance grounds, including their cultural judged about their understand- (Swisher & Deyhle, 1995). Teachers worldviews, their life contexts ing (Trumbull & Solano-Flores, not privy to the communication and values, the kinds of home and 2011). A young student still learn- school experiences they have had ing the protocol of the classroom norms in some communities may (i.e., the foundation of their prior may think, “If the teacher already at times be introducing non-target knows the answer to the question, KSAs into assessment by using the knowledge), their language prefer- why is she asking it? Is this a trick?” very formative assessment prac- ences and proficiency, and their tices that are most accepted (e.g., ways of using language to commu- Students from many cultural questioning students during a nicate and learn. Because forma- backgrounds (e.g., Asian, Latino, whole group discussion). tive assessment has the flexibility

12 WestEd >> WestEd do not have the methodological do not methodological have the studies relevant of the many and small, relatively is based ment are assess of formative impact positive of the on claims which research of body the that is issue Another 2010).Shepard, 2006; 2007; Popham, & Wurtzel, Gong, Marion, (Perie, context ing learn and teaching the to enough closely not tied are they because purpose aformative of serving capable not truly are that ments assess commercial describe to 2011). For it used may example, be (Bennett, things different mean to interpreted been has itself ment” assess “formative term the that is issue 2005).2012a; One Shepard, &Nash, Kingston Mulvenon, 2009; 2011;ment (Bennett, & Dunn assess of formative endorsement uncritical an making in exercised However, be effects. should caution it may have that negative suggest to no evidence is there that asserted (p. gains” learning nificant sig to lead can assessment mative “attention for to that concluded assessment, formative to related 681some (1998), Development, 2005). Wiliam and tion and Black reviewing er Co-op Economic for Organization 1998a; &Wiliam, (Black ing learn on student impact positive purported for its touted highly been has assessment Formative Formative Assessment Effectiveness of intoResearch the validity. of cultural issues address easily more it can text, con to attention incorporate to ­a

publications on studies on studies publications

9) and ------­ Kingston & Nash, 2012b). &Nash, Kingston &Yuen, Shepard, 2012; Furtak, Ruiz-Primo, (See Briggs, odology meth the by limited were findings the whether to as a to debate ing it employed, lead methods for the criticized been has meta-analysis 2012a). &Nash, (Kingston This others than greater are effects tive negative),7 were posi some and only reported, sizes 42the effect (of positive usually are effects the (a of .20);modest however, mean quite are assessment of formative sizes effect the examined, are ods meth rigorous to hewing studies the only if ment that, concludes ment on K–12 achieve student assess of formative impact on the of studies meta-analysis A recent legend. urban of an education’sis equivalent a meta- as review Wiliam’s and of Black characterization the (2011) Bennett sizes. that suggests effect moderate-to-large with ated associ were ment); features these self-assess student questioning, (e.g., teacher assessment feedback, of formative features ofsome the of use teachers’ was common in had reviewed they studies the What methods. research and tices of prac range such awide resented rep used they studies the because them for not feasible was analysis meta- atrue observe, themselves authors the but, as analysis,” a“meta- as to referred often is mative assessment. Their review review Their assessment. mative (1998a) on for of research review Wiliam and Black the with begin assessment of formative benefits the about claims Most assessment. of formative effectiveness the about conclusions support to rigor ­a nalysis nalysis ------­ cific instructional steps to close to close steps instructional cific out spe carry and target, identify, yet may able notdent to be lacks, a stu what knowledge identify to evidence the interpret accurately may and learning student about evidence gathering in may succeed Teachers falters: ment cycle often assess formative of the part this so,if how.and, However,modified be to needs instruction whether determine to used be ment should assess formative through ered gath The evidence assessment. formative from students their about learn what to they response what do to in unsure Teachers are expect: one might as large not as are assessment of formative effects why to the as literature research the in suggestion some is There &West, 2008). Kim, Harrington, (Rich, of .28 size effect an in resulted of writing ment system assess formative puter-based of a com use 2004),Black, and of size average effect an in resulted develop sional profes in learned had teachers that strategies assessment tive forma ofmentation particular imple summaries, other In activities, they have strived to to have strived they activities, other among observation, and ing question Through learning. and thinking students’ understand to instruction, of their course the in have probed, always ers teach effective name, it by that may not have they called Though not new. is assessment Formative Conclusion et Herman 2009; et (Heritage, gaps learning the

.30 (Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, & & Harrison, Lee, (Wiliam, .30 >> April 2013

al., 2006). al., ­men t sessions t sessions

a l., ------13 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

see behind the curtain, to expose is no prescription for how to tailor learners. In H. Andrade & C. why and how their students might formative assessment to meet the Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of forma- get stuck or go off track. These needs of a particular classroom or tive assessment (pp. 181–197). New teachers have taken what they student, but this tailoring is what York: Routledge. have learned about their students good teaching demands of teach- Abedi, J. (2011). Assessing English and used that knowledge, along ers. Thus, the full burden of imple- language learners. In M. Basterra, with their knowledge of pedagogy menting formative assessment E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores and the subject of study, to pro- falls on the teacher. (Eds.), Cultural validity in assess- vide actionable feedback to stu- ment: Addressing linguistic and cul- dents and to tailor their teaching While there are efforts to develop tural diversity (pp. 49–71). New York: to meet students’ learning needs. supports for teachers who want to Routledge. use assessments formatively, there Shavelson (1973) noted that “any is much work to be done. Research Andrade, H. (2010). Students as teaching act is the result of a deci- into learning progressions— the definitive source of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & C. sion … that the teacher makes after those cognitive models of knowl- Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative the complex cognitive processing edge development within specific assessment (pp. 90–105). New York: of available information,” and he domains—may eventually provide Routledge. argued that “what distinguishes teachers with validated models the exceptional teacher from his or that they can use to guide forma- Ash, D., & Levitt, K. (2003). Working her colleagues is not the ability to tive assessment. Professional devel- within the zone of proximal develop­ ask, say, a higher-order question, opment and coaching on formative ment: Formative assessment as pro- but the ability to decide when to assessment may advance teachers’ fessional development. Journal of ask such a question. (p. 144)” That skill in using assessment to provide Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 1–26. decision, according to Shavelson, feedback to s­ tudents and to inform their own instruction; advances would incorporate information Bailey, F., Burkett, B., & Freeman, about students’ understanding of in technology may help teachers D. (2008). The mediating role of lan- course material and how alterna- meet the challenges of tailoring guage in teaching and learning: A tive teaching actions would affect assessment and instruction to indi- classroom perspective. In B. Spolsky students’ understanding. vidual students. And the growing & F. M. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of demand for balanced assessment educational linguistics (pp. 606– As educators and researchers have systems presents both a rationale 625). Malden, MA: Blackwell. been examining how teachers use and an opportunity for the field to Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., Clements, assessments to inform instruction, refocus some of the attention that D. H., Cullen, C., McCool, J., it has become clear that conduct- is currently given to assessment Witkowski-Rumsey, C., & ing formative assessment is not onto classrooms and the important Klanderman, D. (2012). Evaluating only a complex process but one activities of teachers and students and improving a learning tra- that requires extensive knowledge, working to promote learning. jectory for linear measure­ment including knowledge about student in ­elementary grades 2 and 3: A learning, domains of study, assess- ­longitudinal study. Mathematical ment, and pedagogy. Teachers References Thinking and Learning, 14(1), 28–54. must make any act of formative assessment contingent on what has Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues in Basterra, M. (2011). Cognition, cul- ture, language, and assessment: been taught and on how students item-development. In S. M. Downing How to select culturally valid assess- have responded to the teaching, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 377–398). ments in the classroom. In M. and they must shape modifica- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano- tions to instruction in ways that Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in make sense for students at differ- Abedi, J. (2010). Research and assessment: Addressing linguistic and ent developmental ­levels within ­recommendations for formative cultural diversity (pp. 72–95). New particular domains of study. There assessment with English language York: Routledge.

14 WestEd >> WestEd 31 Practice and Issues Measurement: Educational assessment. formative of efficacy the about inferences and methodology (2012). Meta-analytic &Yuen, L., Y. Shepard, E., Furtak, A., M. D. C., Ruiz-Primo, Briggs, Press. Academies school and experience, mind, Brain, learn: (2000). How R. R. people Cocking, & L., J. A. D., Brown, Bransford, McGraw-Hill. learning student of tion evalua summative and formative G. F.Madaus, (1971). on Handbook J. T., & Hastings, S., B. Bloom, 5–31. Evaluation, and Accountability and Evaluation, assessment. of formative theory the Developing P., D.Black, (2009). &Wiliam, Press. of Chicago University (pp. II Part of Education, Study for the Society National of the accountability. and assessment classroom between (Ed.), TowardsWilson coherence M. In learning. promote first must Assessment purpose: formative P., D.Black, (2004). The & Wiliam, ment. assess classroom through dards stan Raising box: black the Inside P., D.Black, (1998b). &Wiliam, Practice & Policy, Principles, Education: in Assessment learning. classroom and Assessment P., D.Black, (1998a). & Wiliam, 18 &Practice, Policy Principles, Education: in Assessment review. Acritical assessment: (2011). E. R. Bennett, Formative action, speech, natural language, language, natural speech, action, J.-P. (1995).Bronkart, of Theories 139–149. (4), 13–17. . Washington, DC: National National DC: . Washington, Phi Delta Kappan, 80 Kappan, Delta Phi Educational Assessment, Assessment, Educational The 103rd yearbook The 103rd yearbook , 5 (1), 7–74. (1), (1), 5–25. (1), . New York:

20–50). 20–50). , 21 (2), (2), (1), (1), - - - , tice prac classroom and theory cognitive Press. University Cambridge (Ed.), (Ed.), McGilly K. In of learners. munity acom (1994). in discovery Guided J. &Campione, C. L., A. Brown, University. 3). New York: on Center College—Columbia Teachers ment, Improve- Instructional Continuous #RR reform to approach evidence-based An ­science: in progressions (2009).A. Learning T., Mosher,Corcoran, F. & Rogat, A., 35 Education of Journal Canadian learning. lifelong and school ing for support of instruction process artistic and A systematic ment: (2012). I. Clark, assess Formative Press. University Harvard worlds possible J.Bruner, (1985). minds, Actual Press. MIT Practice & Policy Principles, Education: in Assessment classrooms. reading remedial in practices assessment formative into (2010). A. B. Long, Teacher inquiry M., & C. M., Moss, S. Brookhart, Canada. Montreal, Association, American Educational Research of the meeting annual at the sented assessment. classroom Research on formative assessment M., (2005, April). S. Brookhart, Practices and Issues Measurement Educational uses. and purposes assessment for classroom theory measurement (2003). M. S. Developing Brookhart, (pp. mind of studies Sociocultural (Eds.), P. Alvarez &A. Rio, del J. V. In Wertsch, discourse. and (2), 24–40. (2), (pp.

‑ 6 75–91). Classroom lessons: Integrating Integrating lessons: Classroom

229–270). Cambridge, MA: MA: Cambridge, 229–270). (CPRE Research Report Report Research (CPRE , 22 Cambridge, England: England: Cambridge, . Cambridge, MA: MA: . Cambridge, (4), 5–12. (4), , 17 (1), 41–58. (1), Paper pre Paper - - - - - ,

& Practice & dents, stu American Native ment among assess and on learning of culture W. (2005). The influences Demmert, Testing Services. learning high-quality supports that system assessment balanced comparable ally (2010).R. & Pecheone, L., Darling-Hammond, spectives in assessing children’s children’s assessing in spectives (Eds.),& J. Solsken D. Bloome, Holland, K. In tests. ized on standard perspective linguistic socio ethnographic An of testing: (1994). C. Emihovich, The language York: Routledge. diversity cultural and linguistic Addressing assessment: in validity (Eds.), Cultural Flores &G. Solano- Trumbull, E. Basterra, M. In uses. assessment and tion, interpreta score Scores, students. for ELL assessments educational P. R. (2011). Durán, valid Ensuring Associates. Erlbaum NJ: Lawrence Hillsdale, and learning skills learning and (Eds.), Thinking Glaser &R. Segal, F. S. J. In W. Chipman, solving. lem prob on bilinguals’ skills language P. R. (1985).Durán, of Influences v14n7.pdf http://www.pareonline.net/pdf/ 14Evaluation, and Research Assessment, Practical education. in assessment formative of impact the of evidence scientific The limited assessment: formative on of research review A critical (2009). S. &Mulvenon, E., K. Dunn, Press. Corwin CA: Oaks, practice. reflective A ing: teach (2008).C. Assessment-centered D., &Strang, Carnahan, K., Cerwin, M., Gearhart, L., Topps, J., Barakos, E., Osmundson, K., DiRanna, Learning Disabilities Research . Princeton, NJ: Educational NJ: Educational . Princeton, , Developing an internation an Developing 20 1,1 –23. 16 (1), (7). Retrieved from from (7). Retrieved (pp >> April 2013 (pp. . Alternative per

115–142). New Thousand Thousand

187–207). ­ ------15 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

language and literacy (pp. 33–52). Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking models used as a link between Norwood, NJ: Ablex. social change and develop­mental formative and summative assessment. change: Shifting pathways of Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts human development. Developmental Service. Retrieved from http://www. on “proximal” formative assess- Psychology, 45(2), 401–418. iaea2008.cambridgeassessment.org. ment of student learning. In P. A. uk/ca/digitalAssets/164898_Harris. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision Greenfield, P. M., & Cocking, R. R. pdf making. The 106th Yearbook of the (Eds.). (1994). Cross-cultural roots of National Society for the Study of minority child development. Mahwah, Hattie, U., & Timperley, H. (2007). Education, 106(1), 186–216. Malden, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The power of feedback, Review of MA: Blackwell Publishing. Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Greenfield, P. M., Quiroz, B., & Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. Raeff, C. (2000). Cross-cultural Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: (2006). The diagnosis of LD in conflict and harmony in the social Language, life, and work in commu- English language learners: Is it non- construction of the child. In S. nities and classrooms. Cambridge, discriminatory? Journal of Learning Harkness, C. Raeff, & C. M. Super England: Cambridge University Disabilities, 39(3), 206–214. (Eds.), Variability in the social con- Press. struction of the child: New directions Frohbeiter, G., Greenwald, E., for child and adolescent develop- Heine, S. J., Takata, T., & Lehman, D. Stecher, B., & Schwartz, H. (2011). ment, 87, 93–108. R. (2000). Beyond self-­presentation: Knowing and doing: What teachers Evidence for self-criticism among learn from formative assessment and Greenfield, P. M., Suzuki, L., & Japanese. Personality and Social how they use information. CRESST Rothstein-Fisch, C. (2006). Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 26, 71–78. Report 802. Los Angeles: UCLA pathways in human development. In Heritage, M. (2008). Learning pro- National Center for Research on W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & K. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook gressions: Supporting instruction Evaluation, Standards, and Student of child psychology (6th ed.), Vol. 4: and formative assessment. Paper pre- Testing. Child psychology in practice (pp. 655– pared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, 699). New York: Wiley. State Collaborative on Assessment D. L., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Greenfield, P. M., Trumbull, E., and Student Standards (SCASS) of Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic assessment Keller, H., Rothstein-Fisch, C., the Council of Chief State School as responsiveness to intervention. Suzuki, L., Quiroz, B., & Maynard, Officers (CCSSO). Washington, DC: Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), A. (2006). Cultural conceptions of CCSSO. 58–63. learning and development. In P. Heritage, M. (2010a). Formative Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Winne (Ed.), Handbook of educa- assessment: Making it happen in Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, tional psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 675– the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. 692). Washington, DC: American Corwin Press. (2008). On the fidelity of implement- Psychological Association. ing embedded formative assessments Guskey, T. R. (2010). Formative Heritage, M. (2010b). Formative and its relation to student learning. assessment: The contributions of assessment and next-generation Applied Measurement in Education, Benjamin S. Bloom. In H. Andrade assessment systems: Are we losing 21, 360–389. & C. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of for- an opportunity? Paper prepared mative assessment (pp. 106–124). for the Council of Chief State Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. New York: Routledge. School Officers. Los Angeles: UCLA (1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ National Center for Research on values and beliefs about their chil- Haertel, E. H. (2006) Reliability. In Evaluation, Standards, and Student dren’s education. Continuities and R. L. Brennen (Ed.), Educational Testing (CRESST). discontinuities across cultures and measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 65–110). generations. In P. Pintrich & M. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2011, Maehr (Eds.), Advances in achieve- April). Teacher questioning: The epi- ment motivation (pp. 183–228). Harris, K., Bauer, M., & Redman, M. center of formative instruction and Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. (2008). Cognitive based developmental assessment. Paper presented at the

16 WestEd >> WestEd tural diversity diversity tural cul and linguistic Addressing ment: (Eds.), &G. Solano-Flores Trumbull, E. Basterra, M. In students. education special of bilingual assessment the in validity cultural Promoting Hoover, J. J. (2011). J., &Klingner, DC. Washington, Council, New Orleans, LA. New Orleans, Association, Research Educational American of the meeting annual students. Native Alaska and Indian American by performance test mathematics NAEP with associated factors April). U. (2011, &Sexton, E., Trumbull, C.-W.,Huang, Nelson-Barber, S., York: Routledge. Workshop systems. for assessment state tices prac Best results. assessment of use better make teachers for helping (2010, K. Hess, April). Testing. Student and Standards, Evaluation, on for Research Center National 703. Los Report practices assessment mative for teachers’ of impact and nature The C., Schneider, &Timms, S., Ayala, E., J. Osmundson, L., Herman, of California. University cess suc assessment generation to next (2010). J. L. Herman, Key Coherence: 28 Practice, and Issues Measurement: Educational assessment? of formative process Aseamless action: to dence (2009). J. evi From L. & Herman, T., J., Vendlinski, M., Kim, Heritage, LA. New Orleans, Association, Research Educational American of the meeting annual (3), 24-31. (3), ( AACC report Student, teacher, and school school and teacher, Student, Cultural validity in assess in validity Cultural Paper presented at the at the presented Paper

II. National Research (pp. ). Los Angeles, CA: CA: Angeles, ). Los

Angeles: UCLA UCLA Angeles: 143–167). New

. CRESST . CRESST M. (2006).M. Strategies ------Reading Psychology, 27 Psychology, Reading assessment. and learning algebra hinder unnecessarily that actions of collaboration. In C. Hoadley & & Hoadley C. In of collaboration. settings in learning understanding learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to of theory Toward adialogic T. (1999,Koschmann, December). ­mathematics-language reading inter from 08–313). NJ: Lawrence Mahwah, Retrieved Associates. Erlbaum (pp. J. and Practice and Issues Measurement: Educational for research. acall and analysis Ameta assessment: Formative (2012a). B. N., &Nash, Kingston, Publishing. Age Information Maehr L. Martin of honor in Essays vation: moti and self, (Eds.), Culture, Groot De &E. Karabenick, S. Kaplan, A. psychology. In educational and tion motiva achievement of fields the to Maehr L. of Martin contribution The motivation: and self, Culture, De & S., Karabenick, A., Kaplan, Lager, C. A. (2006).Lager, A. of C. Types proceedings/cscl1999/A38/A38.HTM Learning (CSCL) 1999 conference Learning Computer Support for Collaborative (pp diversity cultural and linguistic Addressing assessment: in validity (Eds.), Cultural & G. Solano-Flores Trumbull, E. Basterra, M. In ers. learn language of English skills and knowledge academic the about tion informa How get accurate to cesses: pro assessment appropriate Using U. (2011). &Sexton, R., Kopriva, 31 Practice, and Issues Measurement: Educational .2. pin: of ameta-analytic head on the dance can angels formative How many (2012b). B. N., &Nash, Kingston,

Roschelle (Eds.), Roschelle

.

Groot, E. (2009). Introduction: (2009). E. Introduction: Groot,

3 96–114). New York: Routledge.

(pp. http://www.gerrystahl.net/

, vii–xxi). Charlotte, NC: Charlotte, vii–xxi). 30 (4), 28–37. Proceedings of the the of Proceedings (2–3), 165–204. (2–3), (4), 18–19. (4), ‑ ------

­

context of learning of context and culture The motivation: Student &Y. Chiu, C. F. (Eds.), Hong Salili, In achievement. and motivation, student diversity, (2001). Cultural R. & Yamaguchi, L., Maehr, M. MD. Baltimore, Teaching, Science in for Research Association National the of meeting tions. ques test interpret groups ferent dif from students how Examining mother:” the Iwere if as me asking P.M., &Tsai, S. April). (2008, Kwon, M., Solano-Flores-G., Li, strategies teaching and diagnosis, theories, ities: J.Lerner, W. (2000). York: Routledge. 254–274). (pp. New diversity tural cul and linguistic Addressing ment: (Eds.), &G. Solano-Flores Trumbull, E. Basterra, M. In learners. language English with assessments eracy J. (2011).Rivera, lit and Science &Maerten- A., O., Santau, Lee, LA. New Orleans: Association, Research Educational American the of meeting annual at the presented Devising learning learning ­Devising D. (2011, & Wiliam, S., Leahy, April). R. L. Linn (Ed.), Linn L. R. (1989). S. Messick, Validity. In from Retrieved Officers. School State of Chief Council DC: Washington, assessment formative effective of (2008). S. Attributes McManus, Navajo T. (2002). to be L. McCarty, Aplace Psychological Review, 98 motivation. and emotion, cognition, for Implications self: the and Culture (1991). S. H., &Kitayama, Markus, Academic/Plenum. York: Kluwer http://www.ccsso.org Paper presented at the annual annual at the presented Paper . New York: Routledge. Cultural validity in assess in validity Cultural . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mifflin. Houghton . Boston: ­ p >> April 2013 (pp. rogressions. Learning disabil Learning Educational Educational

121–148). New , 224–253. , Paper “It’s “It’s ------. 17 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). Retrieved from http://www.oecd. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of New York: American Council on org/edu/ceri/35661078.pdf reality in the child. New York: Basic Education and Macmillan. Books. Otsuka, S., & Smith, I. D. (2005). Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Educational applications of the Popham, W. J. (2006). All about Almond, R. G. (2003). On the struc- expectancy-value model of achieve- accountability/phony­ formative ture of educational assessments. CSE ment motivation in the diverse cul- assessments. Buyer beware! Educa- Technical Report 597. Los Angeles: tural contexts of the West and the tional Leadership 64(3), 86 –87. UCLA National Center for Research East. Change: Transformations in Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2005, on Evaluation, Standards, and Education, 8(1), 91–109. Student Testing. September). A sociocultural theoriza- Pellegrino, J. W. (2006, November). tion of formative assessment. Paper Mosher, F. A. (2011). The role of learn- Rethinking and redesigning curricu- presented at the Sociocultural Theory ing progressions in standards-based in Educational Research and Practice lum, instruction, and assessment: education reform. CPRE Policy Briefs Conference, Manchester, England. What contemporary research and RB-52. Philadelphia: University of theory suggests. Paper commis- Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Rich, C. S., Harrington, H., Kim, J., sioned by the National Center on Research in Education. Available at & West, B. (2008, March). Automated Education and the Economy for the http:/www.cpre.org. essay scoring in state formative and New Commission on the Skills of the summative writing assessment. Paper Moss, P. (2008). Sociocultural impli- American Workforce. Washington, presented at the annual meeting of cations for the practice of assess- DC: National Center on Education the American Educational Research ment I: Classroom assessment. In and the Economy. Association, New York. P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing under- Assessment, equity, and opportunity Glaser, R. (Eds.), (2001). Knowing standing of the idea of communi- to learn (pp. 222–258). New York: what students know: The science ties of learners. Mind, Culture, and Cambridge University Press. and design of educational assess- Activity, 1(4), 209–229. ment. Washington, DC: National National Joint Committee on Learn­ Academies Press. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as ing Disabilities. (2010). Compre­hen­ a collaborative process. In W. sive assessment and evaluation of Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B., & Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler students with learning disabilities. Wurtzel, J. (2007). The role of interim (Eds.), Handbook of child psychol- Retrieved from http://www.ldanatl.org assessment in a comprehensive sys- ogy: Cognition, perception, and lan- tem: A policy brief. Aspen, CO: The guage (5th ed.) (pp. 679–744). New Nelson-Barber, S., & Trumbull, E. Aspen Institute. York: Wiley. (2007). Making assessment practices valid for Native American students. Perrenoud, P. (1991). Towards a prag- Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature Journal of Indian Education, Special matic approach to formative evalua- of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Issue. tion. In P. Weston (Ed.), Assessment of pupils’ achievements: Motivation Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2011). Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, and school success The theory of language socializa- (pp. 79–101). validity, and utility of self-assess- tion. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger. ment. Practical Assessment, Research Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook & Evaluation, 11(10). Retrieved from Phelan, J., Kang, T., Niemi, D. N., of language socialization (pp. 1–21). http://pareonline.net/pdf/v11n10.pdf Vendlinski, T., & Choi, K. (2009). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Some aspects of the technical quality Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Trumbull, Organization for Economic of formative assessments in middle E. (2008). Managing diverse class- Co-operation and Development school mathematics. CRESST Report rooms: How to build on students’ (OECD). (2005). Formative assess- 750. Los Angeles: UCLA National cultural strengths. Alexandria, VA: ment: Improving learning in sec- Center for Research on Evaluation, Association for Supervision and ondary classrooms. [Policy Brief]. Standards, and Student Testing. Curriculum Development.

18 WestEd >> WestEd Teacher Education skill? teaching basic J. (1973). R. Shavelson, the is What (pp. No. 1) Evaluation, on Curriculum ation Perspectives evalu of curriculum (Eds.), Scriven &M. Gagne, M. R. W. R. Tyler, In of evaluation. ogy (1967). M. Scriven, The methodol Erlbaum. perspective. guistics lin Afunctional schooling: of guage J. M. (2004). Schleppegrell, Sciences instructional systems. Instructional of design the and assessment (1989). D.Sadler, R. Formative 369–393. 39 Teaching, in Science Research instructional sensitivity. for Searching reform: education science of systemic evaluation the (2002). S. On &Klein, L., Hamilton, J., R. Shavelson, A., M. Ruiz-Primo, Sage. Angeles: assesssment room (Ed.), J. McMillan H. In perspectives. New research context: classroom the Examining formative feedback in (2013). M. &Li, A., M. Ruiz-Primo, LA. New Orleans, Association, Research Educational American of the meeting annual the work. students’ back practices: How teachers interpret April). (2011, M. &Li, A, M. Ruiz-Primo, Evaluation Educational learning. students’ ing instructional dialogues in assess of The role assessment: formative (2011). A. M. Ruiz-Primo, Informal D., &Coffey, J. (2007). J.,Shavelson, R. P. Black, J., Wiliam,

39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally. Rand Chicago: 39–83). (AERA Monograph Series Series Monograph (AERA Handbook of research on class on research of Handbook Looking into teachers’ feed into teachers’ Looking , 18 , 119–144. , Paper presented at presented Paper (pp. , 24(2), 144–151. Mahwah, NJ: NJ: Mahwah,

215–234). Los , 37 Journal of of Journal On linking linking On Studies in in Studies Journal of of Journal , 15–24. , The lan The (5), (5), ------ford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/ from Retrieved Education. of School Graduate Stanford CA: Stanford, Lab. Assessment Education Stanford the from Report systems. ment assess large-scale of design in the functions summative and formative gressions in science in science gressions marketplace has brought us: us: brought has marketplace (2010). A. L. Shepard, the What 28 Practice and Issues Measurement: assessment. interim and of formative validity the Evaluating (2009). A. Commentary: L. Shepard, Publishers. CT: Westport, Praeger (pp. 623–645). (4th ed Measurement Educational (Ed.), Brennen L. R. In assessment. (2006). A. Classroom L. Shepard, New York. Learning, and Teaching Shaping Assessment: of The Future 2005, Conference Invitational ETS the at Presentation emptor Caveat assessment: Formative (2005, October). A. L. Shepard, Educational Researcher, 29 culture. alearning in assessment (2000). of The role A. L. Shepard, Press. NSTA C. E. J., Y., R. Yin, Shavelson, Furtak, Publishers. Sense The Netherlands: Rotterdam, (Eds.), W. Gotwals &A. Alonzo C. A. In progressions. (2012). on learning Reflections A. J., R. &Kurpius, Shavelson, learning science (Eds.), Assessing Stearns &C. Douglas, J. R. Coffey, In ing. learn and teaching inquiry science on assessment of formative impact and (2008). role F. the On M., III.

(3), 32–37. (3), C., Young, D. B., M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, Ayala, A., M. M., Ruiz-Primo, (pp.

21–36). VA: Arlington, http://www.stan Learning pro Learning … (pp. Educational Educational Pottenger, (7), 4–14. 4–14. (7),

13–26). 13–26). .) .) - - - - , . Science Teaching diagnoses. level progression of learning tions (2009). Supporting valid interpreta J. T., J. Steedle, R. & Shavelson, 24 Quarterly, learners. guage lan for English measures evaluation Informal assessment: and diversity linguistic and of cultural issue the G. (2008). C. Addressing Spinelli, Educational Researcher, 32 learners. language of English ing test the in paradigms practice and for newresearch The need context: in language (2003).E. Examining G., &Trumbull, Solano-Flores, 553–573. 38 Teaching, in Science Research of Journal assessments. of science validity (2001).S. cultural the On G., &Nelson-Barber, Solano-Flores, Researcher Educational of teaching. a theory Toward instruction: based trajectory (2012). C. & Edgington, Learning P.,Sztajn, P. J., Wilson, Confrey, H., of Oklahoma. University OK: Indian students (Ed.),J. Reyhner Adapting instruction to culture. In D. (1992). & Deyhle, Swisher, K., 114 Record, College Teachers data. of test use teachers’ to key dent understanding—the J. (2012).Supovitz, at stu Getting Assessment Training Institute. OR: Portland, well. it right—Using it Doing learning: student for assessment (2009). S. J., Classroom &Chappuis, J. J., Chappuis, A., R. Arter, Stiggins, Journal of Education of Journal instructional insight. little with teaching Item-by-item , 41 Journal of Research in in Research of Journal , 101–118. , (5), 147–156. (5), (pp. , Reading & Writing Writing & Reading >> April 2013 Teaching American 46 (11), 1–29. (11),

81–95). Norman, , 699–715. , , 85 2,26–257. 246 (2), (2), 3–13. Peabody Peabody (5), (5), - - - - 19 Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory WestEd >>

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). theory of formative assessment. In The instructional conversation: Teacher feedback to young children H. L. Andrade and G J. Cizek (Eds.), Teaching and learning in social in formative assessment: A typol- Handbook of formative assessment activity (Research Report 2). Santa ogy. British Educational Research (pp. 18–40). New York: Routledge. Cruz, CA: The National Center for Journal, 22, 389–404. Research on Cultural Diversity Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & and Second Language Learning, Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers develop- University of California, Santa Cruz. language. Cambridge, MA: Massa- ing assessment for learning: Impact chusetts Institute of Technology. on student achievement. Assessment Topping, K. J. (2010). Peers as a in Education: Principles, Policy and Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and source of formative assessment. In Practice, 11(1), 49– 65. society: The development of higher H. L. Andrade and G J. Cizek (Eds.), psychological processes. Cambridge, Handbook of formative assessment Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2004). MA: Harvard University Press. (pp. 61–74). New York: Routledge. Some links between large-scale and classroom assessments: The case of Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Troia, G. A. (2011). How might the BEAR Assessment System. In Scaffolding the academic success of pragmatic language skills affect M. Wilson (Ed.), Toward coherence adolescent English language learners. the ­written expression of students between classroom assessment and San Francisco: WestEd. with language learning disabilities? accountability. The 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of of Education, Part II (pp. 132–154). 40–53. Practice. Learning as a social sys- tem. Systems Thinker. Retrieved University of Chicago Press. Trumbull, E., & Rothstein-Fisch, C. from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/ (2011). The intersection of culture and Wilson, M. R., & Bertenthal, M. W. knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml achievement motivation. The School (2006). Executive summary. In M. R. Community Journal, 21(2), 25–53. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative Wilson & M. W. Bertenthal (Eds.), assessment: Getting the focus right. Systems for state science assess- Trumbull, E., & Solano-Flores, G. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe. ment (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: (2011). The role of language in assess- ac.uk/1128/1/EAJ_FA_special_ National Research Council, National ment. In M. Basterra, E. Trumbull, issue_commentary_v2.pdf Academies Press. & G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing Wiliam, D. (2010). An i­ntegrative Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. E. linguistic and cultural diversity summary of the research litera- (2000). What teachers need to know (pp. 22–45). New York: Routledge. ture and implications for a new about language. Paper prepared for the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Zhang, T., Mislevy, M. J., Haertel, G., ©2013 WestEd. All rights reserved. Javitz, H., Murray, E., Gravel, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2010). A design pat- Suggested citation: Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment: tern for a spelling assessment for stu- Insights from learning theory and measurement theory. San Francisco: WestEd. dents with disabilities. Assessment for Students with Disabilities Technical Report 2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. WestEd — a national nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency — works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. WestEd has 16 offices nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona and California, with its headquarters in San Francisco. For more information about WestEd, visit WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000, or toll-free (877)4-WestEd; or write: WestEd | 730 Harrison Street | San Francisco, California 94107-1242.

20