Assessment as Guide not Judge

Despite the increase in summative assessments of learning, little has changed in how students perform on national and state assessments. Current classroom instruction has not led to large gains in learning as measured by these assessments. The research has suggested that the added pressure of large-scale accountability assessments has pressured teachers and schools to provide test preparation for students, not genuine critical learning. Research has shown that teachers who used formative assessments to provide specific and timely feedback to their students have had a greater impact on their students’ academic achievement. Students who were provided with such feedback became more attentive and involved in the learning process and began to see the assessment process as a tool to help foster growth. Meta-analyses and early studies have supported, with large amounts of evidence, that using formative assessment in the classroom had a large impact on student academic achievement—especially for those students who were perennial low achievers (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Crooks, 1988; Herman, Choi, National Center for Research on Evaluation, & Student, 2008; Kirton, Hallam, Peffers, Robertson, & Stobart, 2007; Leahy et al., 2005). Students tended to learn more and achieve at a higher level when they responded to assessment results by knowing where they were on the path to success, where they were headed, and what they needed to do to reach that accomplishment. The increased use of formative assessment attributes by the classroom teacher on a daily basis has shown a positive impact on students’ affect toward the learning and assessing process.
The current practice of high-stakes testing given once a year to students to determine the performance that a school or district is making towards adequate yearly progress does little to improve the learning of students. These state-mandated assessments do nothing to provide information to those who need data to inform instructional decisions. The results are often reported 6 months later when those students have finished the school year and are now learning at another grade. The users of that information are preparing to teach students that were probably assessed the previous year on a different level of standards. For assessment data to impact student learning, it must provide immediate, specific feedback to the decision makers (Black & Wiliam, 1998b). The most important users of assessment data are the student and the teacher. This type of large-scale testing does not provide either of those individuals with the necessary information in a manner that will have a useful impact on student learning. For assessments to have an impact on student learning, the results need to provide immediate, specific feedback to the learner and the teacher to inform instructional decisions by the teacher and learning decisions by the student (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005). Assessments that inform the teacher and student as to where the class or individual student is on the learning continuum and where the class or student need to progress have a positive impact on student learning when they are used during the process of learning—not 6 months later, when learning has stopped (Reeves, 2007). The most important response to the information gained from assessments is the psychological response of the student. Large gains in student learning have occurred when the student received assessment information that helped identify where he or she was and where he or she needed to go on the learning continuum and that student responded to the information with the decision to keep trying (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2008). Ultimately it is the student’s reaction and choice to learn–we must not leave the student out of that equation!

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1).

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144.

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

Herman, J. L., Choi, K., National Center for Research on Evaluation, S., & Student, T. (2008). Formative assessment and the improvement of middle school science learning: The role of teacher accuracy. CRESST Report 740: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.

Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P., & Stobart, G. (2007). Revolution, evolution or a trojan horse? Piloting assessment for learning in some Scottish primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 605-627.

Reeves, D. (Ed.) (2007). Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2008). Enhancing student learning. District Administration, 44(1), 42-44.