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
school accountability, has been constitutes learning and would
results of individual students are
dominating assessment use for produce relevant information
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
state-level decision-makers. But The purpose of this paper is to help
2001, state departments of edu-
while such tests may identify readers understand the impor-
cation have assessed students
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 WestEd on the topic of
instruction and curriculum to
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), assessment, teaching, and learn-
ment affects student learning.
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 >> >> April 2013

demands for administration and to make students’ thinking explicit

scoring. Such accountability and thus open to examination and
There can be no
assessments are generally not cou- revision. In this way, the exchanges
pled closely enough to instruction serve as learning opportunities prescription for what
to instruction to yield information (Ruiz-Primo, 2011). Given insights
a single instance of
that would help a teacher think into students’ thinking, a teacher
about what a student might need is in a position to counter mis- formative assessment
in order to better learn what has conceptions and steer learning
should look like. Any
been assessed. back on track through feedback
or instructional modifications instructional activity that
To serve a formative purpose,
(Black & Wiliam, 2004). Teachers
assessment needs to provide action- allows teachers to uncover
can also mentor students to
able information for teachers and
become proficient at asking their the way students think
students (Heritage, 2010a; Shepard,
own questions of each other and
2005). Ideally, it reveals something about what is being taught
responding with ideas, reasoning,
about a student’s progress toward
and evidence, as well as providing and that can be used to
certain learning goals, the stu-
feedback to each other (Black &
dent’s thought processes, and any promote improvements
Wiliam, 1998b). Some have called
misconceptions the student may
feedback the “linchpin” that links in students’ learning can
hold (Supovitz, 2012). Formative
the components of the formative
assessment is highly “contingent” serve a formative purpose.
assessment process (Brookhart,

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
on the instructional situation and
Moss, & Long, 2010, p. 41).
the student(s) (Black & Wiliam,
2009, p. 12). Thus, it should be Feedback is “information pro- that helps them move toward
tailored to the particular students specific learning goals (Black &
vided by an agent (e.g., teacher,
being assessed, the relevant learn- Wiliam, 2009).
peer, parent, the assessment
ing targets, and a specified point
itself) regarding aspects of one’s
in the instructional process; also, The topic of feedback is large and
performance or understanding”
it should take a form most likely to complex, with a lengthy research
(Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81).
elicit the desired learning evidence history; yet much remains to be
Feedback takes on a formative
(Ruiz-Primo & Li, 2011). There done to clarify just how to meet
role when it provides information
can be no prescription for what a the challenge that Black and
about the gap between a student’s
single instance of formative assess- Wiliam (2009) identify. Research
current understanding and the
ment should look like. Any instruc- in classrooms (not laboratory set-
desired level of understanding,
tional activity that allows teachers tings) documenting how feedback
and it is most effective for the stu-
to uncover the way students think is used and with what impact over
dent when it is targeted at the right
about what is being taught and that time is particularly needed (Ruiz-
developmental level and helps the
can be used to promote improve- Primo & Li, 2013).
student identify ways to close the
ments in students’ learning can
gap (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Heritage and Heritage (2011)
serve a formative purpose.
Sadler, 1989). Feedback helps stu- refer to teacher questioning as
Formative assessment is often dents clarify the goals of learning, “the epicenter of instruction and
highly integrated with instruc- their progress toward such goals, assessment” (title). Teachers’ ques-
tion (Herman et al., 2006) and and what they need to do to reach tioning during instruction may be
most commonly takes the form the goals (Hattie & Timperley, informal and spontaneous or may
of classroom exchanges between 2007). The challenge for a teacher be formal and planned prior to
teachers and students (or, less is to gain insight into students’ way the lesson (Shavelson et al., 2008).
commonly, between students). of thinking about the subject mat- A teacher’s informal questions to
These exchanges have the potential ter at hand and to frame feedback students during class may be for

3
 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-
4. Spontaneous vs. planned ing and instruction; others (e.g.,
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
7. Oral vs. written
within each paradigm because
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 2000). This theory of learning is
ing of their thinking. At the other
described along a number of supported by research (Pellegrino
end of the spectrum of formative
different dimensions. Some of et al., 2001), is most compatible
assessment are more formal pro-
the most salient dimensions are with current goals of education,
cedures, such as specific prompts
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., From a sociocultural constructiv-
learning needs, and used to make
2008). These embedded tasks may ist perspective, learners are seen
adjustments [to instruction] to
be so integrated with instruction as actively constructing knowl-
better meet those learning needs”
as to seem natural and unobtru- edge and understanding through
(Wiliam, 2006, p. 3).
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 >> >> April 2013

1998, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978); a student can handle a problem (Heritage, 2010a; Tunstall & Gipps,
as building new knowledge on or complete a task independently 1996). In this classroom, one would
what they already know (i.e., and the level at which the stu- see teacher and students working
prior knowledge) (Bransford, dent can handle or complete the together as part of an interactive
Brown, & Cocking, 2000); and same task with assistance from a community of learners, in roles
as developing the metacognitive more competent other, such as a that may be new to some (Brown
skills necessary to regulate their teacher. Work within the ZPD is & Campione, 1994; Rogoff, 1994),
own learning (Bransford et al., a particular example of joint pro- including engaging in formative
2000; Bruner, 1985; Vygotsky, ductive activity, that is, teacher assessment. Formative assess-
1978). These understandings and student are working jointly to ment calls upon teachers not only
about learning and development ensure that the student reaches a to determine whether students
have implications for the use of learning goal (Ash & Levitt, 2003). have learned something, but also
formative assessment in class- In teaching, the teacher serves as a to probe students’ ways of think-
room instruction. mediator between the student and ing to get at why any learning
the learning goal, providing scaf- gaps exist. In addition to using
The work of Vygotsky (1962, 1978)
folding (i.e., learning support) to assessment evidence to plan future
forms much of the basis for cur-
aid attainment of the goal (Black instruction, teachers are expected
rent conceptualizations of the
& Wiliam, 2009; Walqui & van to use it to help students (1) judge
sociocultural aspects of construc-
Lier, 2010). Formative assessment the state of their own knowledge
tivist learning theory and has been
is part of this process—whether and understanding, (2) identify
widely applied to models of forma-
implicitly or explicitly—as the the demands of a learning task,

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
tive assessment. Students are seen
teacher uses information about (3) judge their own work against a
to develop knowledge and under-
how a student responds to instruc- standard, (4) grasp and set learn-
standing in a domain over time,
tion in order to give feedback to ing goals, and (5) select and engage
not only as individuals but in an
the student and/or adjust instruc- in appropriate strategies to keep
interactive social context, guided
by others with greater expertise tion so as to prompt learning their learning moving forward
(e.g., teacher, parent, peer) (Tharp or performance. In this case, (Andrade, 2010; Black & Wiliam,
& Gallimore, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; formative assessment is almost 1998b, 2009; Bransford et al.,
Wenger, 1998). One assumption of indistinguishable from instruc- 2000; Heritage, 2010b; Stiggins,
sociocultural theory is that learn- tion, as the teacher introduces Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis,
ing is enhanced by what Vygotsky content; assesses how the student 2009). These metacognitive skills
referred to as “joint productive is responding; offers supports are critical to the development of
activity” within a social setting, for understanding and modifies intentional learning and of inde-
such as in a classroom where stu- instruction as needed; re-assesses pendent, self-propelled learners
dents and teachers collaborate as how the student’s learning is pro- who can regulate their own learn-
a community of learners (Ash & gressing; continues with new con- ing and self-correct as needed
Levitt, 2003; Koschmann, 1999). tent or returns in a new way to the (Bransford et al., 2000).
same content, and so forth.
The “zone of proximal develop- Students are expected to be active
ment” (ZPD), a concept taken from The Roles of Teachers and agents in their own learning by
Vygotsky (1978), has been invoked Students in Formative engaging, in increasingly inde-
by formative assessment theorists Assessment pendent ways, in the previously
as useful for understanding the enumerated skills (Clark, 2012). As
gap between a student’s actual The kind of classroom evoked Black and Wiliam (2009) observe,
understanding and the student’s by the sociocultural construc- “[S]ince the responsibility for
targeted or potential learning. tivist theory of learning is one learning rests with both the teacher
The ZPD is the developmental in which teachers and students and the learner, it is incumbent
space between the level at which share responsibility for learning on each to do all they can to

5
 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 instruction next, based on what
work harder.
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). sion may not capture a learner’s
they may not happily embrace;
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 criteria, 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 >> >> April 2013

that brings teaching and learning students. There is currently no Rogat, 2009, p. 8). Shavelson and
theory together in a way not pre- standard way of approaching the Kurpius (2012) believe that experi-
viously done: “Overall, we contend framing of learning progressions. mental research, as well as action
that, despite disciplines, when Sztajn et al. (2012) note that the research by teams of teachers and
teachers organize teaching around progressions resulting from these researchers, may yield knowl-
learning from [a learning trajec- efforts “varied in span, grain size, edge of how to proceed with the
tory] perspective, the trajectory use of misconceptions, and level of development of defensible learn-
serves as the unifying element for detail” (p. 148). ing progressions.
their instruction” (p. 152).
Research shows that cognitive Even though there are not empiri-
Very few learning progressions development in a domain does not cally validated developmental
have been empirically validated, necessarily follow a linear path sequences for the major concepts
so almost any available one (Harris et al., 2008; Shavelson and skills in every academic
needs to be viewed as a tenta- & Kurpius, 2012; Steedle & domain, the concept of learn-
tive heuristic—a way of helping Shavelson, 2009). Moreover, ing progressions is likely to be
teachers think about learning “[p]rogressions are not develop- helpful to teachers in conduct-
development in a given domain— mentally inevitable but depen- ing and interpreting formative
as opposed to a map that is dent on instruction interacting assessments. The hypothesized
faithful to the terrain. Heritage with students’ prior knowledge progressions may guide teachers’
(2008) summarizes seven sample and new-knowledge construction” explorations of student learning
learning progressions in math- (Shavelson & Kurpius, 2012, p. 15). through formative assessment,

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
ematics, history, science, and Whereas there is not likely to be their decisions about developmen-
oral language, as well as a tool a single progression for any com- tally appropriate feedback to stu-
that teachers can use to develop plex learning goal, many believe dents, and their planning of next
their own progressions in science that educators will be able to iden- instructional steps.
("Conceptual Flows" [DiRanna tify paths that are consistent with
et al., 2008]). It is not clear, from the ways that many students learn
her review, whether some or all of (Mosher, 2011). These common Formative Assessment
the progressions have been empir- paths can be annotated by teach- Within Measurement
ically validated or are based on ers as they observe differences in Theory
logical progressions as identified students; this is a necessary step
by domain experts. Sztajn et al. to providing differentiated feed-
The role of measurement theory
(2012) refer to several different back and instruction for learners
with regard to formative assess-
efforts to develop dozens of learn- who veer from the common path.
ment is somewhat contested; it is
ing progressions related to differ-
Much research remains to be not altogether clear whether and,
ent subdomains of mathematics.
done on learning progressions. if so, how and to what degree
Learning progression research Researchers at the Center for accepted measurement principles
is complex and time-consuming, Policy Research in Education should guide formative assessment
and generalizing on the basis of conclude, “If this work is pur- (Bennett, 2011). This section dis-
such research is somewhat risky sued vigorously and rigorously, cusses ways in which established
because of differences in context. the end result should be a solid thinking about measurement in
Recently, researchers validated body of evidence about what most general may contribute to concep-
a learning progression for linear students are capable of achiev- tualizing and designing effective
measurement in grades 2 and 3 ing in school and about the par- formative assessment, as well as
(Barrett et al., 2012). They cau- ticular sequence(s) of learning ways in which traditional practices
tion, however, that this learning experiences that would lead to based on principles of measure-
progression is preliminary, hav- proficiency on the part of most ment theory may not be applicable
ing been tested with only eight students” (Corcoran, Mosher, & to formative assessment. The

7
 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 what they still need to learn.
does not change from one student
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
assessment information tive assessment is in its infancy.
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-
may be, to some degree, egies that teachers use in forma-
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
scale assessments of achieve- instructional decisions to which
section concludes with a discussion
ment—such as statewide testing for they lead, and whether the strate-
of why language and culture should
school accountability—reliability, gies differ in effectiveness for dif-
be considered when planning and
validity, and fairness are examined ferent students (Brookhart, 2003,
implementing formative assess-
in statistical studies that are based 2005; Shepard, 2009).
ment, so as not to bias results.
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 >> >> April 2013

discrepancies or to test compet- assessment triangle is Evidence general, but can also help teachers
ing hypotheses as to why students Centered Design (ECD) (Mislevy, develop assessment processes and
respond the ways they do. Steinberg, & Almond, 2003; Zhang tools that minimize the intrusion
et al., 2010). ECD provides a of unwanted KSAs and increase
Useful Principles of Assessment framework for building valid and the likelihood of making valid
Design fair assessments. In this process, inferences about student learning:
assessment developers identify
An understanding of fundamental » What KSA(s) do I wish to assess
the nature of the evidence that is
principles of assessment design (e.g., knowledge, skills, pro-
needed to make a judgment about
can be useful to teachers in their cesses, understanding toward
specified aspects of student learn-
efforts to obtain high-quality competency in a particular part
ing; then, they examine any pro-
information from students. One of a domain)?
posed assessment task to ensure
useful heuristic is an assessment
that it does not preclude or reduce
triangle that shows the three ele- » What is the cognitive/develop-
the opportunity for any student to
ments present in any type of mental path (i.e., learning tra-
participate in the task and show
assessment: a model of student jectory) I would expect to see
certain knowledge, skills, and
cognition, which describes how with regard to these KSAs?
abilities (KSAs). Sometimes an
students develop competence in
assessment task, including a for- » What evidence (i.e., observable
an academic domain and how
mative assessment, may call on features of students’ perfor-
they organize their knowledge at
additional, unwanted (non-target) mances and responses) would I
different levels of development;
KSAs, and the task may end up need in order to determine the

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
observations, which are the tasks
eliciting evidence not only of the student’s level of KSAs?
or activities in which students’ per-
target KSAs but also of language
formance can be observed, scored, » What are the characteristics
skill or some other skill not related
and evaluated for the purpose of
to the concepts ostensibly being of tasks that will elicit this
gathering evidence of learning;
assessed. In such a case, lack of evidence?
and interpretation, which is the
proficiency with non-target KSAs
rationale for making sense of and » What KSAs that are not wanted
can prevent the student from dem-
deriving inferences from the evi- (e.g., unnecessarily complex
onstrating proficiency with the
dence gathered (Pellegrino et al., language, need for speed of
actual targets of the assessment,
2001, pp. 44–51). Whether or not response) might this type of
limiting the assessment’s fairness
they are made explicit, these ele- formative assessment process
and the validity of interpreta-
ments are equally present in any introduce?
tions derived from it. An example
instance of assessment, includ-
would be a task designed to evalu- » How can I modify my forma-
ing formative assessment, and
ate students’ understanding of a tive assessment process to make
the quality of inferences derived
mathematical concept by having it inclusive for all students, to
from the assessment will depend
students solve a problem that is minimize the impact of non-
on how well these three elements
couched in many pages of text. target KSAs?
have been linked (Pellegrino
et al., 2001). In formative assess- Performance on the task would
be influenced not only by the tar- Non-target KSAs are most com-
ment, a fourth element needs to
get KSA—that is, knowledge of monly introduced unwittingly by
be present: effective translation of
the mathematical concept—but unnecessarily complex language
the interpretation of assessment
also by the non-target KSA—that and/or by content or processes
performance to instructional
decisions and actions. is, ability to read extended text. unfamiliar to students from par-
The following series of questions ticular cultural backgrounds. The
One approach to assessment devel- (based in part on Harris et al., following section shows how this
opment that makes explicit, and 2008) are useful when developing can happen and offer suggestions
links, the three elements of the formative assessment activities in for avoiding such problems.

9
 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 >> >> April 2013

by instructional and assessment oriented to the dominant culture’s

uses of language that do not take ways of using language, which are
In formative assessment,
their needs into account (Fuchs reflected in the classroom (Heath,
et al., 2007; Lerner, 2000; Troia, 1983; Schleppegrell, 2004). These issues of reliability and
2011). A more complex challenge kinds of differences have implica-
validity are addressed
in formative assessment emerges tions for formative assessment. For
for students who have a language- example, in some families, parents over time, as teachers
based learning disability and may routinely talk with their chil-
collect ongoing
are also English language learn- dren about how they are progress-
ers (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006; ing in learning a particular skill or data about student
Hoover & Klingner, 2011). Experts what they may be able to do next
performance and, as
in the education of these students (Moss, 2008). In other families,
see value in formative assessment such conversations are not com- appropriate, make
processes precisely because such mon, and, when asked to engage in
corrections to their
assessment is tailored to the stu- an evaluative conversation about
dents’ contexts and can be used learning, their children may need previous inferences.
on a continuing basis to moni- more teacher modeling and more
tor student progress (National time to develop comfort and skill
Joint Committee on Learning with this process. Explaining the Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995;
Disabilities, 2010; Hoover & school’s expectations to parents Greenfield, Suzuki, & Rothstein-
Klingner, 2011). Should a student while, at the same time, respecting Fisch, 2006; Greenfield, Trumbull

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
need a higher level of interven- parents’ differences in expectations et al., 2006), and how and when to
tion, the teacher will have impor- for children may be an important demonstrate one’s knowledge and
tant evidence about the student's step for teachers to take. If parents understanding—an area entirely
needs, from formative assess- believe that children learn best germane to formative assess-
ment, which he or she can share by listening and showing respect ment (Nelson-Barber & Trumbull,
with specialists evaluating the for the teacher, they may discour- 2007). For example, when asked
student and with parents. age the very behaviors that teach- to name birds that live in a par-
ers are trying to elicit (Greenfield, ticular habitat, children from
Cultural differences in students’ Quiroz, & Raeff, 2000). It is not some cultural backgrounds may
orientation to language use, as surprising that cultural orienta- respond with stories of family
well as their orientation to assess- tion has been shown to affect stu- outings that include sightings of
ment, must be considered if for- dents’ ways of approaching tests birds, rather than the expected
mative assessment is to be valid or test items (Demmert, 2005; scientific discourse that focuses on
and fair. Any use of language in Li, Solano-Flores, Kwon, & Tsai, observations or facts about birds,
the education process has cul- 2008; Swisher & Deyhle, 1992). In abstracted from experience or
tural underpinnings—that is, fact, the expectations for how to instruction (Trumbull, Diaz-Meza,
culture-based assumptions about communicate during assessment, & Hasan, 1999). This is because,
what is appropriate or accept- whether formal or informal, con- in these students’ homes, social
able (Trumbull & Solano-Flores, stitute what is, in effect, a “cultural and cognitive learning are seen as
2011). All students face the task of script” (Emihovich, 1994). integrated, not separable. In such
learning how classroom discourse a case, if the teacher responds by
and the discourses of different Students’ cultural backgrounds discouraging personal stories, he
subject-matter domains work. But, influence their beliefs about or she may suppress students’ par-
based on their home language and/ social roles in the classroom, ticipation in discussion. Instead,
or culture, some students may the purpose of schooling, how the teacher can demonstrate to
less prepared for this task than to use language in the learning students how to extract from their
others, because they may not be process (Bransford et al., 2000; experiences what they have

11
 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. 2008); they may be more moti-
instruction in ways that
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 of a cultural value of working to
at different developmental
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 Lehman, 2000). Teachers need to
domains of study.
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 tors may intersect with forma-
Native students’ later mathemat-
common form of formative assess- tive assessment processes and
ics performance (Huang, Nelson-
ment, may not always be the best tasks, educators can be alert to
Barber, Trumbull, & Sexton, 2011).
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-
norms in some communities may school experiences they have had
ing the protocol of the classroom
at times be introducing non-target (i.e., the foundation of their prior
may think, “If the teacher already
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 >> >> April 2013

to incorporate attention to con- rigor to support conclusions about In other summaries, imple-
text, it can more easily address the effectiveness of formative mentation of particular forma-
issues of cultural validity. assessment. Most claims about the tive assessment strategies that
benefits of formative assessment teachers had learned in profes-
begin with the Black and Wiliam sional development sessions
Research into the resulted in an average effect size
(1998a) review of research on for-
Effectiveness of mative assessment. Their review of .30 (Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, &
Formative Assessment is often referred to as a “meta- Black, 2004), and use of a com-
analysis,” but, as the authors puter-based formative assess-
Formative assessment has been ment system of writing resulted
themselves observe, a true meta-
highly touted for its purported in an effect size of .28 (Rich,
analysis was not feasible for them
positive impact on student learn- Harrington, Kim, & West, 2008).
because the studies they used rep-
ing (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; resented such a wide range of prac- There is some suggestion in the
Organization for Economic Co-op- tices and research methods. What research literature as to why the
eration and Development, 2005). the studies they reviewed had effects of formative assessment are
Black and Wiliam (1998), reviewing in common was teachers’ use of not as large as one might expect:
some 681 publications on studies some of the features of formative Teachers are unsure what to do in
related to formative assessment, assessment (e.g., feedback, teacher response to what they learn about
concluded that “attention to for- questioning, student self-assess- their students from formative
mative assessment can lead to sig- ment); these features were associ- assessment. The evidence gath-
nificant learning gains” (p. 9) and

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
ated with moderate-to-large effect ered through formative assess-
asserted that there is no evidence ment should be used to determine
sizes. Bennett (2011) suggests that
to suggest that it may have negative whether instruction needs to be
the characterization of Black and
effects. However, caution should be modified and, if so, how. However,
Wiliam’s review as a meta-analysis
exercised in making an uncritical this part of the formative assess-
is education’s equivalent of an
endorsement of formative assess- ment cycle often falters: Teachers
urban legend.
ment (Bennett, 2011; Dunn & may succeed in gathering evidence
Mulvenon, 2009; Kingston & Nash, A recent meta-analysis of studies about student learning and may
2012a; Shepard, 2005). One issue on the impact of formative assess- accurately interpret the evidence
is that the term “formative assess- ment on K–12 student achieve- to identify what knowledge a stu-
ment” itself has been interpreted ment concludes that, if only the dent lacks, yet may not be able to
to mean different things (Bennett, studies hewing to rigorous meth- identify, target, and carry out spe-
2011). For example, it may be used ods are examined, the effect sizes cific instructional steps to close
to describe commercial assess- the learning gaps (Heritage, et al.,
of formative assessment are quite
ments that are not truly capable 2009; Herman et al., 2006).
modest (a mean of .20); however,
of serving a formative purpose
the effects are usually positive (of
because they are not tied closely
the 42 effect sizes reported, only Conclusion
enough to the teaching and learn-
7 were negative), and some posi-
ing context (Perie, Marion, Gong,
tive effects are greater than others Formative assessment is not new.
& Wurtzel, 2007; Popham, 2006;
(Kingston & Nash, 2012a). This Though they may not have called
Shepard, 2010).
meta-analysis has been criticized it by that name, effective teach-
Another issue is that the body of for the methods it employed, lead- ers have always probed, in the
research on which claims of the ing to a debate as to whether the course of their instruction, to
positive impact of formative assess- findings were limited by the meth- understand students’ thinking
ment are based is relatively small, odology (See Briggs, Ruiz-Primo, and learning. Through question-
and many of the relevant studies Furtak, Shepard, & Yuen, 2012; ing and observation, among other
do not have the methodological Kingston & Nash, 2012b). activities, they have strived to

13
 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
those cognitive models of knowl- assessment. In H. Andrade & C.
sion … that the teacher makes after
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),
feedback to students and to inform 1–26.
decision, according to Shavelson,
would incorporate information their own instruction; advances
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
assessments to inform instruction, Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., Clements,
refocus some of the attention that
D. H., Cullen, C., McCool, J.,
it has become clear that conduct- is currently given to assessment
W it k ow s k i - R u m s e y, 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
Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues in Basterra, M. (2011). Cognition, cul-
assessment contingent on what has
item-development. In S. M. Downing ture, language, and assessment:
been taught and on how students
& T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook How to select culturally valid assess-
have responded to the teaching,
of test development (pp. 377–398). ments in the classroom. In M.
and they must shape modifica- Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 >> >> April 2013

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative and discourse. In J. V. Wertsch, Darling-Hammond, L., & Pecheone,
assessment: A critical review. P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), R. (2010). Developing an internation-
Assessment in Education: Principles, Sociocultural studies of mind ally comparable balanced assessment
Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. (pp. 75–91). Cambridge, England: system that supports high-quality
Cambridge University Press. learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Testing Services.
Assessment and classroom learning. Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing
Assessment in Education: Principles, measurement theory for classroom Demmert, W. (2005). The influences
Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. assessment purposes and uses. of culture on learning and assess-
Educational Measurement Issues ment among Native American stu-
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). dents, Learning Disabilities Research
and Practices, 22(4), 5–12.
Inside the black box: Raising stan- & Practice, 20(1), 16–23.
dards through classroom assess- Brookhart, S. M., (2005, April).
ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), Research on formative assessment DiRanna, K., Osmundson, E.,
139–149. classroom assessment. Paper pre- Topps, J., Barakos, L., Gearhart, M.,
sented at the annual meeting of the Cerwin, K., Carnahan, D., & Strang,
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The C. (2008). Assessment-centered teach-
American Educational Research
formative purpose: Assessment ing: A reflective practice. Thousand
Association, Montreal, Canada.
must first promote learning. In M. Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., &
between classroom assessment and Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. (2009).
Long, B. A. (2010). Teacher inquiry
accountability. The 103rd yearbook A critical review of research on
into formative assessment practices
of the National Society for the Study formative assessment: The limited
in remedial reading classrooms.
scientific evidence of the impact of

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
of Education, Part II (pp. 20–50). Assessment in Education: Principles,
University of Chicago Press. formative assessment in education.
Policy & Practice, 17(1), 41–58.
Practical Assessment, Research and
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Evaluation, 14(7). Retrieved from
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C.
Developing the theory of formative ht t p://w w w.pa reon line.net /pd f /
(1994). Guided discovery in a com-
assessment. Educational Assessment, v14n7.pdf
munity of learners. In K. McGilly
Evaluation, and Accountability, 21(1),
(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating Durán, R. P. (1985). Influences of
5–31.
cognitive theory and classroom prac- language skills on bilinguals’ prob-
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & tice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: lem solving. In S. F. Chipman, J. W.
Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on MIT Press. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking
formative and summative evalua- and learning skills (pp. 187–207).
Bruner, J. (1985). Actual minds,
tion of student learning. New York: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:
McGraw-Hill. Associates.
Harvard University Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Durán, R. P. (2011). Ensuring valid
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assess- educational assessments for ELL
Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people
ment: A systematic and artistic students. Scores, score interpreta-
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
process of instruction for support- tion, and assessment uses. In M.
school. Washington, DC: National
ing school and lifelong learning. Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-
Academies Press.
Canadian Journal of Education, Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in
Briggs, D. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., 35(2), 24–40. assessment: Addressing linguistic and
Furtak, E., Shepard, L., & Yuen, Y. cultural diversity (pp. 115–142). New
(2012). Meta-analytic methodology Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat,
York: Routledge.
and inferences about the efficacy of A. (2009). Learning progressions in
formative assessment. Educational science: An evidence-based approach Emihovich, C. (1994). The language
Measurement: Issues and Practice, to reform (CPRE Research Report of testing: An ethnographic socio-
31(4), 13–17. #RR-63). New York: Center on linguistic perspective on standard-
Continuous Instructional Improve- ized tests. In K. Holland, D. Bloome,
Bronkart, J.-P. (1995). Theories of ment, Teachers College—Columbia & J. Solsken (Eds.), Alternative per-
action, speech, natural language, University. spectives in assessing children’s

15
 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
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & Heritage, M. (2008). Learning pro-
National Center for Research on
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
699). New York: Wiley. for Teachers and Students (FAST)
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Compton,
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.
Winne (Ed.), Handbook of educa- Heritage, M. (2010a). Formative
Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,
tional psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 675– assessment: Making it happen in
Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon,
692). Washington, DC: American the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA:
P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y.
Psychological Association. Corwin Press.
(2008). On the fidelity of implement-
ing embedded formative assessments Heritage, M. (2010b). Formative
Guskey, T. R. (2010). Formative
and its relation to student learning. assessment and next-generation
assessment: The contributions of
Applied Measurement in Education, assessment systems: Are we losing
Benjamin S. Bloom. In H. Andrade
21, 360–389. an opportunity? Paper prepared
& C. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of for-
mative assessment (pp. 106–124). for the Council of Chief State
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. School Officers. Los Angeles: UCLA
New York: Routledge.
(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 >> >> April 2013

annual meeting of the American Kaplan, A., Karabenick, S., & Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2011, April).
Educational Research Association, De Groot, E. (2009). Introduction: Devising learning progressions. Paper
New Orleans, LA. Culture, self, and motivation: The presented at the annual meeting of
contribution of Martin L. Maehr to the American Educational Research
Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., the fields of achievement motiva- Association, New Orleans: LA.
& Herman, J. L. (2009). From evi- tion and educational psychology. In
dence to action: A seamless process A. Kaplan, S. Karabenick, & E. De Lee, O., Santau, A., & Maerten-
of formative assessment? Educational Groot (Eds.), Culture, self, and moti- Rivera, J. (2011). Science and lit-
Measurement: Issues and Practice, vation: Essays in honor of Martin L. eracy assessments with English
28(3), 24-31. Maehr (pp. vii–xxi). Charlotte, NC: language learners. In M. Basterra,
Information Age Publishing. E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores
Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key (Eds.), Cultural validity in assess-
to next generation assessment suc- Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2012a). ment: Addressing linguistic and cul-
cess (AACC report). Los Angeles, CA: Formative assessment: A meta- tural diversity (pp. 254–274). New
University of California. analysis and a call for research. York: Routledge.
Educational Measurement: Issues
Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayala, and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. Lerner, J. W. (2000). Learning disabil-
C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). ities: theories, diagnosis, and teaching
The nature and impact of teachers’ for- Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2012b). strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
mative assessment practices. CRESST How many formative angels can
dance on the head of a meta-analytic Li, M., Solano-Flores-G., Kwon,
Report 703. Los Angeles: UCLA
pin: .2. Educational Measurement: M., & Tsai, S. P. (2008, April). “It’s
National Center for Research on
Issues and Practice, 31(4), 18–19. asking me as if I were the mother:”
Evaluation, Standards, and Student

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
Examining how students from dif-
Testing. ferent groups interpret test ques-
Kopriva, R., & Sexton, U. (2011).
Using appropriate assessment pro- tions. Paper presented at the annual
Hess, K. (2010, April). Strategies
cesses: How to get accurate informa- meeting of the National Association
for helping teachers make better use
tion about the academic knowledge for Research in Science Teaching,
of assessment results. Best prac-
and skills of English language learn- Baltimore, MD.
tices for state assessment systems.
ers. In M. Basterra, E. Trumbull,
Workshop II. National Research Maehr, M. L., & Yamaguchi, R.
& G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural
Council, Washington, DC. (2001). Cultural diversity, student
validity in assessment: Addressing
motivation, and achievement. In
Hoover, J. J., & Klingner, J. (2011). linguistic and cultural diversity
F. Salili, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.),
Promoting cultural validity in the (pp. 96–114). New York: Routledge.
Student motivation: The culture and
assessment of bilingual special context of learning (pp. 121–148). New
Koschmann, T. (1999, December).
education students. In M. Basterra, York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Toward a dialogic theory of
E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores
learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to
(Eds.), Cultural validity in assess- Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991).
understanding learning in settings
ment: Addressing linguistic and cul- Culture and the self: Implications for
of collaboration. In C. Hoadley &
tural diversity (pp. 143–167). New cognition, emotion, and motivation.
J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the
York: Routledge. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Computer Support for Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) 1999 conference McCarty, T. L. (2002). A place to be
Huang, C.-W., Nelson-Barber, S.,
(pp. 308–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Navajo. New York: Routledge.
Trumbull, E., & Sexton, U. (2011,
Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved
April). Student, teacher, and school
f rom http://w w w.ger r ystahl.net / McManus, S. (2008). Attributes
factors associated with NAEP
proceedings/cscl1999/A38/A38.HTM of effective formative assessment.
mathematics test performance by
Washington, DC: Council of Chief
American Indian and Alaska Native Lager, C. A. (2006). Types of State School Officers. Retrieved
students. Paper presented at the mathematics-language reading inter- from http://www.ccsso.org
annual meeting of the American actions that unnecessarily hinder
Educational Research Association, algebra learning and assessment. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In
New Orleans, LA. Reading Psychology, 27(2–3), 165–204. R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational

17
 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- account abi lit y/phony for mative
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
on Evaluation, Standards, and Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2005,
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- presented at the Sociocultural Theory
Rethinking and redesigning curricu-
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- Rich, C. S., Harrington, H., Kim, J.,
Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy
sioned by the National Center on & West, B. (2008, March). Automated
Research in Education. Available at
Education and the Economy for the essay scoring in state formative and
http:/www.cpre.org.
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. York: Wiley.
Aspen Institute.
(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:
Issue. Oxford University Press.
tion. In P. Weston (Ed.), Assessment
of pupils’ achievements: Motivation Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability,
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2011).
and school success (pp. 79–101). validity, and utility of self-assess-
The theory of language socializa-
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 >> >> April 2013

Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative and summative functions Item-by-item teaching with little
formative assessment: The role of in the design of large-scale assess- instructional insight. Peabody
instructional dialogues in assess- ment systems. Report from the Journal of Education, 85(2), 246–257.
ing students’ learning. Studies in Stanford Education Assessment
Educational Evaluation, 37, 15–24. Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber,
Lab. Stanford, CA: Stanford
S. (2001). On the cultural validity
Ruiz-Primo, M. A, & Li, M. (2011, Graduate School of Education.
of science assessments. Journal of
April). Looking into teachers’ feed- Retrieved from http://www.stan-
Research in Science Teaching, 38(5),
back practices: How teachers interpret ford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/
553–573.
students’ work. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Shavelson, R. J., & Kurpius, A.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull,
Educational Research Association, (2012). Reflections on learning
E. (2003). Examining language in
New Orleans, LA. progressions. In A. C. Alonzo & A.
context: The need for new research
W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning pro-
and practice paradigms in the test-
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Li, M. (2013). gressions in science (pp. 13–26).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense ing of English language learners.
Examining formative feedback in
the classroom context: New research Publishers. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.
perspectives. In J. H. McMillan
Shavelson, R. J., Yin, Y., Furtak, Spinelli, C. G. (2008). Addressing
(Ed.), Handbook of research on class-
E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, the issue of cultural and linguistic
room assesssment (pp. 215–234). Los
C. C., Young, D. B., … Pottenger, diversity and assessment: Informal
Angeles: Sage.
F. M., III. (2008). On the role and evaluation measures for English lan-
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., impact of formative assessment on guage learners. Reading & Writing

Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning Theory and Measurement Theory
Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On science inquiry teaching and learn- Quarterly, 24, 101–118.
the evaluation of systemic science ing. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C.
education reform: Searching for Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science Steedle, J. T., & Shavelson, R. J.
instructional sensitivity. Journal of learning (pp. 21–36). Arlington, VA: (2009). Supporting valid interpreta-
Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), NSTA Press. tions of learning progression level
369–393. diagnoses. Journal of Research in
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of Science Teaching, 46, 699–715.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment in a learning culture.
assessment and the design of Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis,
instructional systems. Instructional J., & Chappuis, S. (2009). Classroom
Sciences, 18, 119–144. Shepard, L. A. (2005, October). assessment for student learning: Doing
Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. it right—Using it well. Portland, OR:
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The lan- Presentation at the ETS Invitational
Assessment Training Institute.
guage of schooling: A functional lin- Conference 2005, The Future of
guistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Supovitz, J. (2012). Getting at stu-
Erlbaum. Learning, New York. dent understanding—the key to
teachers’ use of test data. Teachers
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodol- Shepard, L. A. (2006). Classroom
ogy of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, College Record, 114(11), 1–29.
assessment. In R. L. Brennen (Ed.),
R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Educational Measurement (4th ed.)
Swisher, K., & Deyhle, D. (1992).
Perspectives of curriculum evalu- (pp. 623–645). Westport, CT: Praeger
Adapting instruction to culture. In
ation (AERA Monograph Series Publishers.
J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching American
on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1)
(pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally. Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Indian students (pp. 81–95). Norman,
Evaluating the validity of formative OK: University of Oklahoma.
Shavelson, R. J. (1973). What is the and interim assessment. Educational
basic teaching skill? Journal of Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H.,
Measurement: Issues and Practice,
Teacher Education, 24(2), 144–151. 28(3), 32–37. & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning
trajectory based instruction: Toward
Shavelson, R. J., Black, P. J., Wiliam, Shepard, L. A. (2010). What the a theory of teaching. Educational
D., & Coffey, J. (2007). On linking marketplace has brought us: Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.

19
 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 Practice, 11(1), 49–65.
source of formative assessment. In
society: The development of higher
H. L. Andrade and G J. Cizek (Eds.),
psychological processes. Cambridge, Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2004).
Handbook of formative assessment
MA: Harvard University Press. Some links between large-scale and
(pp. 61–74). New York: Routledge.
classroom assessments: The case of
Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). the BEAR Assessment System. In
Troia, G. A. (2011). How might
Scaffolding the academic success of M. Wilson (Ed.), Toward coherence
pragmatic language skills affect
adolescent English language learners.
the written expression of students between classroom assessment and
San Francisco: WestEd.
with language learning disabilities? accountability. The 103rd Yearbook
Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), of the National Society for the Study
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of
40–53. of Education, Part II (pp. 132–154).
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 .u k /1128 /1/ E A J_ FA _ sp e ci a l _ 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