Formative Assessment & Standards-Based Grading. Robert J. Marzano
category in table 1.2 deals with providing assessment feedback to teachers. Lynn Fuchs and Douglas Fuchs (1986) found that providing teachers with graphic representations of student progress was associated with an ES of 0.70, which translates into a 26 percentile point gain. This is quite consistent with a set of studies conducted at Marzano Research (since renamed Marzano Resources) in which teachers had students chart their progress on specific learning goals (Marzano Resources, 2009). The results are depicted in table 1.4.
Table 1.4 Studies on Students Tracking Their Progress
| Study | Effect Size | Percentile Gain |
| 1 | 2.44 | 49 |
| 2 | 3.66 | 49 |
| 3 | 1.50 | 43 |
| 4 | -0.39 | -15 |
| 5 | 0.75 | 27 |
| 6 | 1.00 | 34 |
| 7 | 0.07 | 3 |
| 8 | 1.68 | 45 |
| 9 | 0.07 | 3 |
| 10 | 1.20 | 38 |
| 11 | -0.32 | -13 |
| 12 | 0.43 | 17 |
| 13 | 0.84 | 30 |
| 14 | 0.63 | 24 |
| Average | 0.92 | 32 |
Table 1.4 reports the results of fourteen studies conducted by K–12 teachers on the effects of tracking student progress. The average ES of these fourteen studies was 0.92, which translates into a 32 percentile point gain. Taking these findings at face value, one would conclude that learning is enhanced when students track their own progress.
Note that in studies 4 and 11, tracking student progress had a negative effect on student achievement (indicated by the negative ES). As is the case with all assessment (and instructional) strategies, this strategy does not work equally well in all situations. Effective assessment requires ascertaining the correct way to use a strategy. In subsequent chapters, we make recommendations as to the correct way to track student progress.
Formative Assessments
Formative assessment has become very popular in the last decade. It is typically contrasted with summative assessment in that summative assessments are employed at the end of an instructional episode while formative assessments are used while instruction is occurring. As Susan Brookhart (2004, p. 45) explained, “Formative assessment means information gathered and reported for use in the development of knowledge and skills, and summative assessment means information gathered and reported for use in judging the outcome of that development.”
Formative assessments became popular after Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam (1998a) summarized the findings from more than 250 studies on formative assessment. They saw ESs in those studies that ranged from 0.4 to 0.7 and drew the following conclusion:
The research reported here shows conclusively that formative assessment does improve learning. The gains in achievement appear to be quite considerable, and as noted earlier, among the largest ever reported for educational interventions. As an illustration of just how big these gains are, an effect size of 0.7, if it could be achieved on a nationwide scale, would be equivalent to raising the mathematics attainment score of an “average” country like England, New Zealand, or the United States into the “top five” after the Pacific rim countries of Singapore, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong. (p. 61)
In effect, Black and Wiliam were saying that an ES of 0.70 (the largest ES reported in the studies they summarized), when sustained for an entire nation, would dramatically enhance student achievement. Indeed, consulting the table in appendix B (page 155), we see that an ES of 0.70 is associated with a 26 percentile point gain in student achievement. The reporting of these findings captured the attention of U.S. educators.
The Black and Wiliam study is sometimes referenced as a meta-analysis of some 250 studies on formative assessment. As described in appendix B of this book, a meta-analysis is a quantitative synthesis of research in a specific area. When performing a meta-analysis, a researcher attempts to compute an average ES of a particular innovation (in this case, formative assessment) by examining all of the available studies. While Black and Wiliam certainly performed a rigorous analysis of the studies they examined, they did not conduct a traditional meta-analysis. In fact, in a section of their article titled “No Meta-Analysis,” they explain, “It might seem desirable, and indeed might be anticipated as conventional, for a review of this type to attempt a meta-analysis of the quantitative studies that have been reported” (1998a, p. 52). They go on to note, however, that the 250 studies they examined were simply too different to compute an average ES.
It is important to keep two things in mind when considering the practice of formative assessment. The first is that, by definition, formative assessment is intimately tied to the formal and informal processes in classrooms. Stated differently, it would be a contradiction in terms to use “off the shelf” formative assessment designed by test makers. James Popham (2006) has harshly criticized the unquestioning use of commercially prepared formative assessments. He noted:
As news of Black and Wiliam’s conclusions gradually spread into faculty lounges, test publishers suddenly began to relabel many of their tests as “formative.” This name-switching sales ploy was spurred on by the growing perception among educators that formative assessments could improve their students’ test scores and help schools dodge the many accountability bullets being aimed their way. (p. 86)
To paraphrase Popham (2006), externally developed assessments simply do not meet the defining characteristics of formative assessment. Lorrie Shepard (2006) made the same point:
The research-based concept of formative assessment, closely grounded in classroom instructional processes, has been taken over—hijacked—by commercial test publishers and is used instead to refer to formal testing systems called “benchmark” or “interim assessment systems.” (as cited in Popham, 2006, p. 86)
A similar criticism might be leveled at many district-made “benchmark” assessments in that they frequently violate many of the basic assumptions underlying good formative assessment. As James McMillan (2007) explained:
These tests, which are typically provided by the district or commercial test publishers, are administered on a regular basis to compare student achievement to “benchmarks” that indicate where student performance should be in relation to what is needed to do well on end-of-year high stakes tests…. Although the term benchmark is often used interchangeably with formative in the commercial testing market, there are important differences. Benchmark assessments are formal, structured tests that typically do not provide the level of detail needed for appropriate instructional correctives. (pp. 2–3)
The second thing to keep in mind is that while there is a good deal of agreement about its potential as a tool to enhance student achievement, the specifics of formative assessment are somewhat elusive. In fact, most descriptions of formative assessment are very general in nature. To illustrate, in their original study, Black and Wiliam (1998a) noted that “formative assessment does not have a tightly defined and widely accepted meaning” (p. 7). Dylan Wiliam and Siobhan Leahy (2007) described formative assessment as follows:
The qualifier formative will refer not to an assessment or even to the purpose of an assessment, but rather to the function it actually serves. An assessment is formative to the extent that information from the assessment is fed back within the system and actually used to improve the performance of the system in some way (i.e., that the assessment forms the direction of improvement). (p. 31)
Rick Stiggins, Judith Arter, Jan Chappuis, and Stephen Chappuis (2006) described formative assessment as assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning:
Assessments for learning happen while learning is still underway. These are the assessments that we conduct throughout teaching and learning to diagnose student needs, plan our next steps in