Formative Assessments As Pedagogic Tools: Ashwin Kumar

Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Year: 2013
Formative assessments as pedagogic tools

Ashwin Kumar
1

Abstract
This article aims at presenting a state of the art status of formative assessment as a pedagogic tool.
To this end, a brief developmental account of different modes of assessment over the last decades
will be presented first. Then, formative assessment will be discussed in its constructivist guise. The
present literature on assessment suggests that assessment for learning (formative assessment) not
only represents an assessment tool but it also serves as a pedagogic tool to enhance learning and
thinking. It has also gone to lengths to affect the design of classroom tasks and activities. Attempts
have been made to delineate the underlying principles of formative assessment which can be used
to picture the formation process of learners knowledge and development. Subsequently,
alternative assessment techniques of which the present article will give an account have been
suggested by scholars to operationalize these principles.

Keywords: Formative assessment; constructivism, pedagogic tool; alternative assessment

Introduction
As the metaphor by Mitchell and Vandal (2001) puts it, the shifting tide of interest has long been
drifting the field of language pedagogy along a major river. Not only do we have been shifting
trends and approaches over the course of time, but we have also been adding more and more
sophistication into our theory and practice. The traditional approaches to language pedagogy were
mostly intuitive fabrications of what language and teaching and learning a language might have
been. The acts of teaching and learning in those contexts were based on a set of prescribed
classroom activities which were to bring about learning. As the river pushed forth over the course
of time, new schools of thought, other fields of study and innovative interdisciplinary fields
contributed to language pedagogy. As a result of these contributions, the art of language teaching
has grown more sophisticated both in terms of theoretical conceptions that inform teaching acts
and pragmatic tools that have been added to the teachers toolbox.

1
BA, MA (Distinction), PhD; University of Western Sydney, Australia. [email protected]

Kumar, A. (2013). Formative assessments as pedagogic tools. International Journal of Human Sciences. 10(1), 750-759.

751
On the other hand, some techniques and procedures, that traditionally had no direct application in
day-to-day classroom practice, gained more and more prominence and found their way into
classroom environments. One of these components that has smoothly crept into the immediate
classroom context is assessment. As the analogy implies, this migration has taken place over time.
The concept and function of assessment in current language pedagogy is way different from what it
might have meant for traditional teaching methodology. This transition has made assessment a
working teaching technique. The transition could be assumed to have taken place over three
developmental phases which may be outlined as product-oriented assessment, process-based
assessment and assessment in constructivist perspective.

PRODUCT-ORIENTED ASSESSMENT
As Brown (1989, p.224) puts it, product-oriented approaches are those which focus on the goals
and instructional objectives of a program with the purpose of determining whether they have been
achieved. In this sense, the focus of assessment is on "measureable behavioral subjects" whereby
the success or failure of learning and pedagogical objectives is determined based on students
performance on an end-of-the-course assessment session. This is the function that has been
attributed to summative assessment which is thought of as a means of assessing a certain level of
proficiency. Consequently, the efficiency of a course of teaching and learning practice is judged in
terms of students achievement of a certain level of proficiency. This implies that summative
product-oriented assessment mainly attempts to assess the students degree of achievement of
predetermined set-in-stone curricular objectives. This type of assessment has but a descriptive
function; to portray what it is that students know.

PROCESS-BASED ASSESSMENT
The advent of nativist approach along with the associate cognitive psychology shifted the attention
from description of observable performance to the underlying mental processes of language
learning. Brown (2007, p.12) suggests that the generative linguist and cognitive psychologist were
far more interested in a more ultimate question, why: what underlying factors- innate,
psychological, social, or environmental- caused a particular behavior in a human being?. Then the
concept of formative assessment which were to delve into the formation process of the learner
came into vogue. Alternative assessment procedures were suggested to deal with learning in actual
reality and address learning in its immediate context (see Ghoorchaei et al, 2010).


752
Chastain (1988, p.378) asserts that the primary purpose of evaluation [assessment] in the
classroom is to judge the achievements of both students and the teacher. He stresses that this type
of assessment is an aspect of learning but he still contends that it is the final step in the
sequence toward mastery of content and accomplishment of objectives (p.338). Brown (1989,
p.292) also suggests that formative assessment is part of the ongoing process of the development of
a course of study, which intends to gather information that will be used to improve the program.

While the scholars in this era had begun to recognize the value of formative assessment, they failed
to grasp it wholeheartedly as part and parcel of day-to-day teaching and learning activities. For
example, Chastain (1988, p.379) contends that there are certain weaknesses in this type of
assessment because, after all, the evaluative judgments are highly subjective, may be based on
short-term learning, and if given daily, may be confusing and burdensome to record in the record
book. Formative assessment was then predominantly thought of as a short quiz with a few items
administered to students, which the students themselves with the aid of their peers were to score.
This was supposed to give the learners opportunities to evaluate their own progress.

ASSESSMENT IN CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE
The constructivist paradigm succeeded to the throne of language pedagogy in the latter part of the
twentieth century. Constructivism is a multi-dimensional paradigm which integrates linguistic,
psycholinguistic and socio-cultural theories of language acquisition. Social constructivism is
primarily built upon vygotskian theories of social interaction. According to Brown (2007, p.12), It
emphasizes the importance of social interaction and cooperative learning in constructing both
cognitive and emotional images of reality.

Under this paradigm shift, the concept of formative assessment managed to adopt a constructivist
framework. Accordingly, assessment reform movement took shape to draw the attention on
improving student learning and on two principles that helped to operationalize it, namely,
assessment for learning and formative assessment (Noonan & Duncan, 2005). Consistent with the
constructivist classrooms that yearn for enhancing discursive interaction and dialogue within the
classroom context, assessment procedures have also come to adapt discursive and dialogic
techniques. Mantero (2002) asserts that assessment which is consistent with socio- cultural theories
of language acquisition draws on two operational techniques: instructional conversations and
authentic assessment. Either technique purports to render assessment as part of the process of
learning and classroom discourse. Mantero believes that this type of formative assessment is


753
consistent with socio-cultural theories and Vygotskys concept of zone of proximal development
(ZPD) since it is not based on a priori grammar which students are expected to have mastered,
rather, it addresses the dynamic nature of language learning and learners emergent grammar, the
grammar that will develop as a result of students engagement in meaningful interaction and
discursive dialogues. In this regard, formative assessment has come to set the stage for more self-
expression, creation of meaning and negotiation during communication.

DISCUSSION
Black and William (1998, p.10) defined formative assessment as all those activities undertaken by
teachers and/or by their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the
teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged. Formative assessment is thus a
pedagogic tool which is used collaboratively by both teachers and learners to enhance learning,
adjust teaching and learning activities, provide feedback on the efficiency of teaching and learning
acts and direct future path. Dunn and Mulvenon (2009) assert that research has incontrovertibly
revealed that the use of formative assessment facilitates improvement in instructional practices,
identifies gaps in the curriculum and contributes to increased student performance. Another
definition has been provided by the council of chief state officers (CCSSO, 2008) which define
formative assessment as: a process used by teachers and students during instruction that
provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students achievement of
instructional outcomes.

The definition clearly emphasizes the collaborative nature of this type of assessment in which both
the teacher and learners are involved and which is compatible with current learner-centered
approaches. CCSSO (2008) has delineated five key attributes of effective formative assessment
which is supposed to foster learning:
Learning progressions: learning progressions should clearly articulate the sub-goals of the
ultimate learning goal.
Learning goals and criteria for success: learning goals and criteria for success should be clearly
identified and communicated to students.
Descriptive feedback: students should be provided evidence-based feedback that is linked to
the intended instructional outcomes and criteria for success.
Self and peer assessment: self and peer are important for providing students with an
opportunity to think meta-cognitively about the learning.


754
Collaboration: a classroom culture in which teachers and students are partners in learning
should be established.

Assessment reform group (ARG) is also one of the chief proponents of assessment reform
movement, which originated in 1989 by a group of voluntary researchers. Though, they were first
preoccupied with the introduction of national testing and assessment in the UK, they shifted
their attention to the use of assessment to advance learning as well as to summarize and report it.

Assessment reform group (2002) outlined 10 principles of formative assessment (assessment for
learning) based on exhaustive review of empirical research. The principles have been provided as
operational techniques to guide classroom practice. In this regard, the assessment that intends to
enhance learning:
Is part of effective planning
Focuses on how students learn
Is central to classroom practice
Is a key professional skill
Is sensitive and constructive
Fosters motivation
Promotes understanding of goals and criteria
Helps learners know how to improve
Develops the capacity for self-assessment
Recognizes all educational achievement

This type of assessment not only is used as a pedagogic tool in teaching and learning acts but it also
affects the design of classroom tasks and activities. Schafer and Moody (2004) contend that
classroom activities should be created that provide students with opportunities to demonstrate the
depth of their understandings and that also provide teachers with a rich source of diagnostic
information to help them understand each students strengths and weaknesses with respect to
attaining proficiency.

Boston (2002) also emphasizes the interrelatedness of assessment and teaching and learning acts.
Boston asserts that teachers need to consider how their classroom activities and assignments
support learning aims and allow students to communicate what they know, then use this
information to improve teaching and learning.


755
OPERATIONALIZING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Assessment reform movement has led to the emergence of novel assessment procedures that are
used to operationalize principles of formative assessment in the post-method classrooms. From
among the alternative assessment techniques, self and peer assessment and portfolio assessment
have gained especial importance (Ghoorchaei et al, 2010; Noonan & Duncan, 2005; Rea- Dickens,
2000). There are also some other assessment techniques proposed as components of formative
assessment including student-designed tests, learner-centered assessment, projects and
presentations, which are used to shift the attention from assessing the outcome to evaluating the
process of learning and learners development.

1. PEER AND SELF ASSESSMENT
An important component of formative assessment is feedback that may be used by both the
teacher and learners to modify and adapt teaching techniques and to understand strengths and
weaknesses and direct future attention, respectively. Boston (2002) asserts that it is generally the
teacher who provides this type of feedback; however, students can also be regarded as generators
of feedback through self-assessment. This type of feedback is consistent with Vygotskian concept
of zone of proximal development since it notifies students of their current language knowledge and
the desired level of proficiency; hence, it informs them of the existing gap. McDonald and Boud
(2003) contend that students can be taught strategies to evaluate their own works and to make
choices how to respond to the presented material (e.g. evaluate their work and make use of
assessment activities) at their developmentally appropriate pace.

Peer-assessment has a more collaborative focus in which students work together on collaborative
projects or learning activities (Noonan & Duncan, 2005) while they are supposed to make
decisions on the value and accuracy of their peers works6. Noonan and Duncan (2005) suggest
that teachers use of peer- and self-assessment may have four specific purposes which may
ultimately enhance learning. Peer- and self-assessment may be used to:

1. Increases student involvement in learning processes (e.g. students assume teaching
responsibilities)
2. Increases social interactions and trust in others
3. Facilitates individual feedback
4. Focuses students on the process rather than the product


756
The purposes delineated above are consistent with socio-cultural and constructivist theories to
which post- method classrooms are supposed to conform.

Noonan and Duncan (2005) conducted a survey study in western Canada and investigated the
school teachers use of peer- and self-assessment. They found that English language teachers used
these assessment techniques more often than did teachers of other subject areas (49% of the
English teachers used peer- and self-assessment). The researchers conclude that peer- and self-
assessment procedures are indeed to empower students to make decisions (e.g. construct
knowledge) that contributes to the individual language experience. Ross (2006) suggests a model
as to how self-assessment may contribute to self-efficacy:

Figure 1 The Effect of Self-Assessment Processes on Learners Self-Efficacy

Based on this model, autonomous self-regulating learners begin with close observation of their
performance based on their own subjective rubrics. They continue with judging their performance
based on their understanding of general and specific learning goals. In the third phase, they react to
their judgments, which indicates what degree of fulfillment they have attained. The successful
outcomes of the preceding phases are quite likely to lead to the feelings of self-efficacy. Ross (2006)
believes that self-assessment contributes to self-efficacy beliefs, which may encourage the
learners to take positive attitudes towards their successful performance on the same tasks in future.

2. PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT
As a type of formative assessment, portfolio assessment also purports to foster learning and
learners autonomy. A portfolio is a sample of students work including writings, audio and video


757
tapes, diaries, etc. Rea-Dickens (2000, p.390) affirms that portfolios may include a variety of
students work samples like writing, drawings, notes, audio or video recordings, extracts from
projects, and performance on specific tests. They may also involve the data on different aspects
of development, achievement, interest and motivation.

Portfolio assessment is primarily concerned with learning rather than assessment for the sake of
assigning grades (see Ghoorchaei et al, 2010). The content of portfolio, usually called evidence or
artifact, is actually the best samples of students works as ascertained by the students themselves.
Research on portfolio assessment has been promising in affirming its efficiency as a pedagogic tool
(e.g. Ghoorchaei et al, 2010; Yurdabakan and Erdogan, 2009; Wang and Liao, 2008; Chen, 2006).
However, portfolio assessment seems to work best in teaching writing skills but may not be so
useful in other language skills. Yurdabakan and Erdogan (2009) studied the effect of portfolio
assessment on the improvement of reading, listening and writing skills on a group of Turkish high
school EFL students. They found that portfolio project significantly improved students learning of
writing skills but not reading and listening skills.

Ghoorchaei et al (2010) investigated the impact of portfolio assessment on Iranian EFL learners
development of writing skills. They used classroom portfolio model in which the portfolios are
assigned primarily for learning rather than assessment purposes. They reported that the use of
portfolios significantly improved the experimental groups writing skills comparing with a control
group who received traditional instruction and assessment. In addition to effectuating learning
processes, portfolio assessment also takes care of students attitudinal and affective reactions. In
their study, Ghoorchaei et al (2010) investigated the learners attitudes towards portfolio
assessment. They reported that students generally advocated the positive impact of portfolio on
their progress. Their findings also suggested that portfolio project had fostered learners motivation
to continue with their reading and writing.

Wang and Liao (2008) also reported that students in their portfolio group rejoiced greater
satisfaction than those in the control group. Though, the research on portfolio has been
inconclusive to prove the positive effects of portfolio use on the development of all language skills
in EFL learners (Yurdabakan & Erdogan, 2009; Ghoorchaei et al, 2010), portfolio assessment is
still regarded as an effective operational model of assessment for learning (Chen, 2006). Portfolio
assessment actively engages students in the process of collection, selection and reflection which
ultimately enhances learners meta- awareness, autonomy and self-regulation skills.


758
CONCLUSION
Assessment procedures have gone to lengths to get aligned with dominant instructional approaches
over the course of time. Current constructivist orthodoxy has also exerted its influence on
assessment procedures and transformed the assessment to serve and foster learning processes,
enhance learners awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, provide descriptive feedback,
modify teaching and learning acts and address affective considerations in language learning. In this
regard, assessment for learning (formative assessment) has come to be the integral part of teaching
and learning activities in day to day classroom practice. Formative assessment should ideally take
care of both cognitive and affective factors. For example, Rea-Dickens (2000, p.393) indicates that
motivation is as relevant to assessment processes as it is to learning. Ross (2006) suggests a
model of formative assessment that cultivates self-efficacy which may ultimately result in building
up self-confidence to successfully carry out future tasks.

There have been attempts to delineate the underlying principles of formative assessment (e.g. ARG,
2002; Rea-dickens, 2000; CCSSO, 2008). Accordingly, alternative assessment procedures have been
proposed to operationalize those principles. However, it still remains for EFL contexts to fully
grasp these new assessment techniques (Rea-Dickens, 2000). Research on the efficiency of
alternative assessment techniques in EFL contexts has been promising for promoting some
language skills, particularly writing skills, but not all of them (e.g. Ghoorchaei et al, 2010;
Yurdabakan & Erdogan, 2009). However, it is common knowledge that the use of alternative
assessment techniques effectively serves teaching and learning acts (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009;
Ghoorchaei et al, 2010). The implication for EFL classrooms is the requirement to adapt alternative
assessment procedures as the ongoing day-to-day processes of evaluation and adaptation consistent
with current pedagogical orthodoxy.

REFERENCES:

Mitchell, C., & Vandal, K. (2001). Weighing the Ways of the Flow: Twentieth Century Language
Instruction. Modern Language Journal, 85, 26-38. Theory and Practice. Florida: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. R. (2005). Peer and Self-Assessment in High School s. Practical
Assessm ent, Research & Education, 10 (17). Retrieved January 12, 2013 from http://
www. PAREonline.net/getvn.asp
Mantero, M. (2002). Evaluating Classroom Communication: In Support of Emergent and
Authentic Frameworks in Second Language Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research &
Education, 8 (8). Retrieved January 12, from http:// www. PAREonline.net/getvn.asp
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5
(1), 774.


759
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment:
The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education.
Practical Assessment, Research & Education, 14 (7). Retrieved June 6, 2011 from http://
www. PAREonline. net/getvn.asp.
CCSSO. (2008). Attributes of Effective Formative Assessment. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from
http://www.ccsso.org/ Resources/Publications
Assessment Reform Group (ARG). (2002). Assessment For Learning: 10 Principles. Retrieved June
26, 2011 from http://www.assessment-reform-group.org/CIE3.PDF
Schafer, W. D., & Moody, M. (2004). Designing Accountability Assessments for Teaching, Practical
Assessment. Research & Education, 9 (14). Retrieved June 12, 2011 from http:// www.
PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?
Boston, C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment, Practical Assessment. Research &
Education, 8(9). Retrieved June 26, 2011 from http://www. PAREonline.net/ getvn.asp?
Ross, J. A. (2006). The Reliability, Validity, and Utility of Self- Assessment. Practical Assessment,
Research & Education, 11 ( 1 0 ) . R e t r i e v e d J u n e 6 , 2 0 11 f r o m h t t p : / / w
w w. PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?
Rea-Dickens, P. (2000). Classroom Assessment. In T. Hedge (Ed.), Teaching and Learning in the
Language Classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Yurdabakan, I., & Erdogan, T. (2009). The Effects of Portfolio Assessment on Reading, Listening
and Writing Skills of Secondary School Prep Class Students. The Journal of International
5'ocial Research, 2(9), 528-538.
Wang, Y H, & Liao, H C. (2008). The Application of Learning Portfolio Assessment for Students
in the Technological and Vocational Education System. Asian Efi Joumal, 1 0(2), 132-
154.
Chen, Y. rvt (2006). EFL Instruction and Assessment with Portfolios: A Case Study in Taiwan.
The Asian EFL Joumal Quarteiiy; 8(1), 69-96.

Formative Assessments As Pedagogic Tools: Ashwin Kumar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formative Assessments As Pedagogic Tools: Ashwin Kumar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formative Assessments As Pedagogic Tools: Ashwin Kumar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Year: 2013

Formative assessments as pedagogic tools

You might also like