Formative Assessment & Standards-Based Grading. Robert J. Marzano

of formative assessments.

      Another problem that plagues standards-based reporting is the lack of distinction between standards-referenced systems and standards-based systems. Grant Wiggins (1993, 1996) was perhaps the first modern-day educator to highlight the differences between a standards-based system and a standards-referenced system. In a standards-based system, a student does not move to the next level until he or she can demonstrate competence at the current level. In a standards-referenced system, a student’s status is reported (or referenced) relative to the performance standard for each area of knowledge and skill on the report card; however, even if the student does not meet the performance standard for each topic, he or she moves to the next level. Thus, the vast majority of schools and districts that claim to have standards-based systems in fact have standards-referenced systems. As we shall see in chapter 6, both systems are viable, but they are quite different in their underlying philosophies. Understanding the distinctions between standards-based and standards-referenced systems helps schools and districts design a grading system that meets their needs.

Translating Research Into Classroom Practice

      In subsequent chapters, we draw from the research and theory in this chapter and from sources such as Classroom Assessment and Grading That Work (Marzano, 2006) and Designing and Teaching Learning Goals and Objectives (Marzano, 2009) to discuss how formative assessment can be effectively implemented in the classroom. We also outline a system of grading that, when used uniformly and consistently, can yield much more valid and reliable information than that provided by traditional grading systems.

      As mentioned in the introduction, as you progress through the remaining chapters, you will encounter exercises that ask you to examine the content presented. Some of these exercises ask you to answer specific questions. Answer these questions and check your answers with those provided in the back of the book. Other exercises are more open-ended and ask you to generate applications of what you have read.

      Chapter 2

       THE ANATOMY OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

      The discussion in chapter 1 highlights both the interest in and the confusion about formative assessment and its use in K–12 classrooms. An obvious question one might ask is, Why the confusion? To answer this question, it is useful to understand some history about the term formative assessment. Initially, it was used in the field of evaluation. In an American Educational Research Association monograph series published in 1967, Michael Scriven pointed out the distinction between evaluating projects that were being formulated and evaluating those that had evolved to their final state. The former were referred to as formative evaluations and the latter were referred to as summative evaluations.

      In the world of projects, the distinction between formative evaluation and summative evaluation makes perfect sense. Consider a project in which a new curriculum for elementary school mathematics is being developed. There is a clear beginning point at which the authors of the program start putting their ideas on paper. There are benchmarks along the way, such as completing a first draft, gathering feedback on that draft, and making revisions based on the feedback. Finally, there is a clear ending point when the new curriculum has been published and is being distributed to schools.

      According to Popham (2008), Benjamin Bloom tried in 1969 to transplant the formative/summative evaluation distinction directly into assessment, but “few educators were interested in investigating this idea further because it seemed to possess few practical implications for the day-to-day world of schooling” (p. 4). As described in chapter 1, it would take until the Black and Wiliam (1998a) synthesis for the idea to catch on. At that time, they offered the following definition of formative assessment:

      Formative assessment … is to be interpreted as all of those activities undertaken by teachers and/or by students which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they engage. (pp. 7–8)

      In 2006, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) attempted to tighten the definition of formative assessments. According to Popham (2008),

      A central activity in the CCSSO assessment initiative was the creation of a new consortium focused specifically on formative assessment. A CCSSO consortium is composed of key department of education personnel from those states that wish to participate. Each of these groups is referred to as a State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS), and a new SCASS dealing exclusively with formative assessment, known as Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers—or FAST SCASS, if you’re in a hurry—was formed in mid-2006. (pp. 4–5)

      At its inaugural four-day meeting in October of 2006, FAST SCASS crafted a definition of formative assessment that reflected the latest research on effective assessment practices. As reported by Popham, the following definition came out of this effort: “Formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes” (2008, p. 5). Defining features of formative assessment were as follows:

      • Formative assessment is a process, not any particular test.

      • It is used not just by teachers but by both teachers and students.

      • Formative assessment takes place during instruction.

      • It provides assessment-based feedback to teachers and students.

      • The function of this feedback is to help teachers and students make adjustments that will improve students’ achievement of intended curricular aims. (Popham, 2008, p. 5)

      In his 2008 book Transformative Assessment, Popham updated that definition again: “Formative assessment is a planned process in which teachers or students use assessment-based evidence to adjust what they are currently doing” (p. 6). He also listed the following characteristics:

      • Again, formative assessment is not a test but a process—a planned process involving a number of different activities.

      • One of those activities is the use of assessments, both formal and informal, to elicit evidence regarding students’ status: the degree to which a particular student has mastered a particular skill or body of knowledge.

      • Based on this evidence, teachers adjust their ongoing instructional activities or students adjust the procedures they’re currently using to try to learn whatever they’re trying to learn. (p. 6)

      The preceding definitions have certainly illustrated the general concept of formative assessment, but this book is intended to go one step further by specifying how formative assessment might manifest in the classroom. To this end, the categories depicted in table 2.1 are used throughout the book. Table 2.1 addresses two important distinctions in classroom assessment: types of assessments and uses of assessments. This chapter attempts to flesh out the defining characteristics of both.

      Before delving into the anatomy of formative assessment, we should begin with a working definition of classroom assessment in general. Paraphrasing from the distinctions made in Classroom Assessment and Grading That Work (Marzano, 2006), we will define a classroom assessment as anything a teacher does to gather information about a student’s knowledge or skill regarding a specific topic. This definition is very much in keeping with the general descriptions of assessment provided by Black and Wiliam in their 1998 article titled “Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment.” That work was a brief description of the findings from their synthesis of 250 studies on formative assessment. They noted:

      We use the general term assessment to refer to all those activities undertaken by teachers—and by