Formative Assessment Practices in Northern California Classrooms

• In Event: Present and Future Formative Assessment Practices

Abstract

Perspective

In light of the prevalent literature and widespread recognition of the value of formative assessment practice, we observed classrooms and interviewed teachers and principals to explore the breadth and depth of formative assessment implementation.

Methods

Participants. Three Northern California school sites--one elementary and two middle schools--were identified as potential exemplars of formative assessment practices. The principals and two teachers at each site agreed to participate in eight to nine classroom observations and follow-up teacher interviews after each observation. Additionally, principals agreed to one interview on the school’s implementation of formative assessment practices.

Instruments
The research team developed three instruments: a classroom observation protocol, and two interview protocols. The observation protocol enabled collection of a rich description of teaching strategies and student learning organized into seven categories: knowledge and skills, direction from teacher, groupings, feedback, process, tools, and formative use. Each category was further subdivided into more detailed sets of observation points, fourteen in all, and observers assigned a Likert rating from 1 to 7 to each.

Teacher interview questions explored the extent that teaching strategies influenced student learning, and the principal interview instrument probed the level of leadership focus on formative assessment.

Data Sources

The observation Likert scale ratings, observers’ field notes, and teacher and principal interviews provided the data used to analyze the type and extent of formative assessment practices implemented and observed across the 48 classroom visits.

Results

Detailed analyses of the fourteen observation points from classroom observations together with teacher and principal interviews are ongoing. For example, the mean Likert scale rating for the category “objective” was 4.3 indicating that “some skills and knowledge are highlighted, and some reference to a standard or focus is made but not clearly defined.” An optimal Likert scale rating of 7 indicated “objective clearly written on board and orally expressed based on a specifically stated standard.” Similar analyses will be provided for each observation point.

In general terms, the data indicated teachers’ familiarity with ideas and vocabulary of formative assessment. For example, teachers used specific strategies such as asking students to complete work on whiteboards to share with teachers and/or peers for immediate feedback. Teachers also routinely questioned students on next steps in algorithm completion. However, lacking were formative assessment strategies that assessed the depth of student understanding, that allowed for opportunities for students to reflect on their thinking and express those thoughts, and subsequent teacher adjustments to their instruction to improve student learning. These missing practices are those identified in the literature and by experts as key to effective formative assessment practices.

Significance
This study examined classroom practices in higher achieving schools with larger populations of at risk students. The schools indicated support for and widespread implementation of formative assessment practices. However, our findings of low implementation of key formative assessment practices indicate an urgent need to develop a formative assessment prototype system that will assist teachers in implementing effective formative assessment practices to enhance student learning.

Author

• Nancy A. Ewers, University of California - Davis