FORMATIVE USE OF ASSESSMENT INFORMATION: IT'S A PROCESS, SO LET'S SAY WHAT WE MEAN

Q2 Social Sciences
Robert Good
{"title":"FORMATIVE USE OF ASSESSMENT INFORMATION: IT'S A PROCESS, SO LET'S SAY WHAT WE MEAN","authors":"Robert Good","doi":"10.7275/3YVY-AT83","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The term formative assessment is often used to describe a type of assessment. The purpose of this paper is to challenge the use of this phrase given that formative assessment as a noun phrase ignores the well-established understanding that it is a process more than an object. A model that combines content, context, and strategies is presented as one way to view the process nature of assessing formatively. The alternate phrase formative use of assessment information is suggested as a more appropriate way to describe how content, context, and strategies can be used together in order to close the gap between where a student is performing currently and the intended learning goal. Let’s start with an elementary grammar review: adjectives modify nouns; adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. Applied to recent assessment literature, the term formative assessment would therefore contain the adjective formative modifying the noun assessment, creating a noun phrase representing a thing or object. Indeed, formative assessment as a noun phrase is regularly juxtaposed to summative assessment in both purpose and timing. Formative assessment is commonly understood to occur during instruction with the intent to identify relative strengths and weaknesses and guide instruction, while summative assessment occurs after a unit of instruction with the intent of measuring performance levels of the skills and content related to the unit of instruction (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). Distinguishing formative and summative assessments in this manner may have served an important introductory purpose, however using formative as a descriptor of a type of assessment has had ramifi cations that merit critical consideration. Given that formative assessment has received considerable attention in the literature over the last 20 or so years, this article contends that it is time to move beyond the well-established broad distinctions between formative and summative assessments and consider the subtle – yet important – distinction between the term formative assessment as an object and the intended meaning. The focus here is to suggest that if we want to realize the true potential of formative practices in our classrooms, then we need to start saying what we mean.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/3YVY-AT83","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41

Abstract

The term formative assessment is often used to describe a type of assessment. The purpose of this paper is to challenge the use of this phrase given that formative assessment as a noun phrase ignores the well-established understanding that it is a process more than an object. A model that combines content, context, and strategies is presented as one way to view the process nature of assessing formatively. The alternate phrase formative use of assessment information is suggested as a more appropriate way to describe how content, context, and strategies can be used together in order to close the gap between where a student is performing currently and the intended learning goal. Let’s start with an elementary grammar review: adjectives modify nouns; adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. Applied to recent assessment literature, the term formative assessment would therefore contain the adjective formative modifying the noun assessment, creating a noun phrase representing a thing or object. Indeed, formative assessment as a noun phrase is regularly juxtaposed to summative assessment in both purpose and timing. Formative assessment is commonly understood to occur during instruction with the intent to identify relative strengths and weaknesses and guide instruction, while summative assessment occurs after a unit of instruction with the intent of measuring performance levels of the skills and content related to the unit of instruction (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). Distinguishing formative and summative assessments in this manner may have served an important introductory purpose, however using formative as a descriptor of a type of assessment has had ramifi cations that merit critical consideration. Given that formative assessment has received considerable attention in the literature over the last 20 or so years, this article contends that it is time to move beyond the well-established broad distinctions between formative and summative assessments and consider the subtle – yet important – distinction between the term formative assessment as an object and the intended meaning. The focus here is to suggest that if we want to realize the true potential of formative practices in our classrooms, then we need to start saying what we mean.
评估信息的形成性使用:这是一个过程,所以让我们说一下我们的意思
形成性评估这个术语通常用来描述一种类型的评估。本文的目的是挑战这个短语的使用,因为形成性评估作为名词短语忽略了一个公认的理解,即它是一个过程而不是一个对象。将内容、上下文和策略结合在一起的模型是一种以形式化方式查看评估过程本质的方法。评估信息的替代短语形成性使用被认为是一种更合适的方式来描述如何将内容、上下文和策略一起使用,以缩小学生当前的表现与预期的学习目标之间的差距。让我们从基本语法复习开始:形容词修饰名词;副词修饰动词、形容词和其他副词。因此,在最近的评价文献中,形成性评价一词将包含形容词形成性对名词评价的修饰,创造一个代表事物或物体的名词短语。事实上,形成性评估作为一个名词短语,在目的和时间上经常与总结性评估并列。形成性评估通常被理解为在教学过程中进行,目的是确定相对优势和劣势并指导教学,而总结性评估发生在教学单元之后,目的是衡量与该教学单元相关的技能和内容的表现水平(Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006)。以这种方式区分形成性评估和总结性评估可能具有重要的介绍性目的,然而,使用形成性评估作为一种评估类型的描述符具有值得批判性考虑的分支。鉴于在过去20年左右的时间里,形成性评估在文献中受到了相当大的关注,本文认为,现在是时候超越形成性评估和总结性评估之间公认的广泛区别,并考虑形成性评估这一术语作为对象和预期意义之间微妙但重要的区别。这里的重点是建议,如果我们想要在课堂上实现形成性实践的真正潜力,那么我们需要开始说出我们的意思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信