Feedback, Correctives, and the Use of Pre-Assessments

• In Event: 67.037 - Instructional Feedback: Types, Contexts, and Recommendations

Abstract

Most educators today recognize the importance of classroom formative assessments. They understand how assessments for learning can be used to improve a wide variety of student learning outcomes. But many of those same educators think that using assessments as learning tools, rather than simply as evaluation devices that mark the end of instruction, is a relatively new idea. They believe the powerful effects of classroom formative assessments on student learning have been recognized for only a couple of decades, perhaps dating back to the work of Black and Wiliam (1998).
The truth of the matter is that the value of formative assessments was identified more than five decades ago by a true giant in the field of education. In his seminal 1968 article, Learning for Mastery, Benjamin Bloom described the benefits of offering students regular feedback on their learning progress through classroom formative assessments. Bloom went on to outline specific strategies teachers could use to implement formative assessments as part of regular classroom routines, both to improve student learning and to reduce achievement gaps among different subgroups of students (Bloom, 1971). It was Bloom who introduced the term “formative” assessment to education and provided practical guidance on how teachers could use these learning tools in modern classrooms (Guskey, 2007a, 2012).
This paper describes the contributions of Benjamin Bloom, particularly his ideas on the use of classroom formative assessments as an integral part of the instructional strategies he labeled “mastery learning.” We review the application of Bloom’s theory and the importance of both feedback and correctives in the formative assessment process. We also describe Bloom’s advocacy for many of the ideas educators stress today: making expectations clear, using assessment data to improve teaching and learning, and using differentiated instruction to close gaps in learning (Guskey, 2007b).
In addition we examine the use of pre-assessments in classroom instruction. Again, Bloom and his colleagues (Bloom et al., (1981) described the use of “diagnostic pretests and placement tests” to measure students’ “cognitive entry behaviors.” But due to the typically poor psychometric properties of these instruments, they cautioned teachers against using such assessments on a regular basis. With the current popularity of pre-assessments as tools for instructional planning, however, examining their use as another source of feedback on student learning is critically important.
We describe three forms of pre-assessments: prerequisite, present, and preview; and show how these forms differ in their purpose, structure, and content. We explain how each form addresses different questions, provided different information, and is used by teachers in different ways to help student learn. We also present the results of research into each form and its effectiveness in guiding improvements in student learning.
Classroom formative assessments and purposefully constructed pre-assessments offer educators valuable tools to improve student learning. To realize the true benefits of these assessments, however, teachers at all levels need to focus attention on how best to use assessment results to provide students with more favorable learning conditions so that all students learn well.

Author

• Thomas R. Guskey, University of Kentucky