Formative Assessment and Contingency in the Regulation of Learning Processes

• In Event: Toward a Theory of Classroom Assessment as the Regulation of Learning

Abstract

The relationship between the instruction and what actually is learned as a result is far from straightforward. Even when students are motivated and instruction is well-designed, increases in student capabilities are, in general, impossible to predict. This is why assessment can be regarded as the bridge between teaching and learning—only through assessment can we decide whether instruction has had its intended effect. Such assessment can be conducted at the end of the instructional sequence, but in recent years there has been increasing interest in the idea that assessment might be used to improve the process of education, rather than simply evaluating its results.
There does not appear to be any agreed definition of the term formative assessment. Some (e,g, Shepard, 2007) have argued that the term should be applied only when assessment is closely tied to the instruction it is intended to inform, while many test publishers have used the term “formative” to describe tests taken at intervals as long as six months (e.g., Princeton Review, 2006). Others (e.g., Broadfoot et al., 1999) have argued for the term “assessment for learning” rather than “formative assessment” although Bennett (2011) has argued that there are important conceptual and practical differences between the two terms. Other issues on which there appears to be little consensus are:
a) Whether it is essential that the students from whom evidence was elicited are beneficiaries of the process;
b) Whether the assessment has to change the intended instructional activities;
c) Whether students have to be actively engaged in the process.
This paper reviews the prevailing debates about the definition of formative assessment and proposes a definition based on the function served by evidence of student achievement elicited by the assessment, thus placing instructional decision-making at the heart of the issue. This definition is then further developed by exploring the way these decisions occur at moments of contingency in the instructional process, so that whether an assessment functions formatively or not depends on the extent to which the decisions taken serve to better direct the learning towards the intended goal. In other words, assessments function formatively to the extent that they regulate learning processes. The paper concludes with a discussion of different kinds of regulatory mechanisms suggested by Perrenoud (1998), specifically whether the regulation is proactive (measures taken before the instructional episode), interactive (measures taken during the instructional episode (interactive regulation) or retroactive (measures taken after the instructional episode to improve future instruction).

Author

• Dylan R. Wiliam, Institute of Education - London