As implementation of the Common Core Literacy Standards moves ahead, teachers, students, and schools are discovering that the standards demand a great deal of them in order to achieve the vision of college, career, and citizenship in the global–digital world outlined in the standards. To accomplish the goals and high expectations set forth in the Literacy Standards, teachers confront fundamental changes in their curricular, instructional, and assessment practices.
Purpose/Objective
This article presents a working model of the formative assessment process that we think will be essential for effective implementation of the standards. Assessment for learning rather than testing of achievement is presented as a way of guiding teachers and students through the progressions needed to college and career-readiness. The paper is organized around four points: (a) the distinctive features of the model, (b) the match between the model and the vision of the standards, (c) a description of the inquiry process that serves as the “engine” for the model, and (d) an account of the Herman–Heritage cycle-time/grain-size concept that supports ongoing management of formative assessment. The model is designed to be embedded in the project-based activities called for in the standards as students conduct short- and long-term research across the disciplines.
Research Design
This article presents the results of a careful and comprehensive reading of the Common Core Literacy Standards. A focused review of the literature on formative assessment serves as the foundation for the working model presented here.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The conceptual ideas and practical tools discussed in this article point to the need for substantial and sustained professional development, both preservice and inservice, to support the fundamental changes entailed by the standards. To foster the deep understandings called for by the standards, teachers will require an equally deep understanding of formative assessment as a process in which inquiry is embedded in instruction to monitor learning, provide feedback, and shape students learning as it is taking place.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achieve. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
2.
Achieve. (2013). Closing the achievement gap: 2013 Annual report on the alignment of State K-12 policies and practices with the demands of college and careers. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
AchieveTheCore. (2011). Common core shifts for English language arts/literacy. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
4.
AlbertsB. (2012). Failure of skin-deep learning. Science, 338(7), 1263.
5.
AndersonL. W. (2003). Classroom assessment: Enhancing the quality of teacher decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
AndradeH. L., & CizekG. J. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge Press.
7.
AtkinJ. M., BlackP., & CoffeyJ. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
BereiterC. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (2005). Beyond Bloom's taxonomy: Rethinking knowledge for the knowledge age. In FullanM. (Ed.), Fundamental change (pp. 5–20). New York: Springer.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74.
13.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In WilsonM. (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (pp. 20–50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
BlackP., WilsonM., & YaoS. Y. (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation of learning progressions. Measurement, 9, 71–23.
15.
BloomB. S., HastingsJ. T., & MadausG. F. (1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-hill.
16.
BoylesN. (2013). Closing in on close reading. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 36–41.
17.
BrookhartS. M. (2013). Comprehensive assessment systems in service of learning: Getting the balance right. In LissitzR. W. (Ed.), Informing the practice of teaching using formative and interim assessment (pp. 165–184). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
18.
BrookhartS. M. (2008). Feedback that fits. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 54–59.
19.
BrownA. (1992). Design experiments; theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
20.
BushawW. J., & LopezS. J. (2013). Which way do we go? 45th annual PDK poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 95(1), 9–14.
21.
CalfeeR. C., & DrumP. A. (Eds.). (1979). Teaching reading in compensatory classes. Newark, NJ: International Reading Assn.
22.
CalfeeR. C., & HiebertE. (1988). The teacher's role in using assessment to improve learning. In BundersonC. V. (Ed.), Assessment in the service of learning (pp. 45–61). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
23.
CalfeeR. C., & HiebertE. H. (1990). Classroom assessment of reading. In BarrR., KamilM., MosenthalP., & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading (2nd ed., pp. 281–309). New York: Longman.
24.
CalfeeR. C., & HiebertE. H. (1991). Teacher assessment of student achievement. In StakeR. (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation, Vol. 1 (pp. 103–131). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
25.
CalfeeR. C., & MasudaW. V. (1997). Classroom assessment as inquiry. In PhyeG. D. (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 69–102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26.
CalfeeR. C., & WilsonK. M. (2004). A classroom-based writing assessment framework. In StoneC. A., SillimanE. R., EhrenB. J., & ApelK. (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 583–599). New York: Guilford Publications.
CalfeeR. C., WilsonK., KapinusB., & FlanneryB. (in press). Assessment of literacy: Fifty years and more. In HiebertE. H. & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Grounding the Common Core Standards in established research and practice. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
CazdenC. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
30.
ChappuisS., StigginsR. J., ChappuisJ., & ArterJ. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right – using it well (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson.
31.
ColeN. (1988). A realist's appraisal of the prospects for unifying instruction and assessment. In BundersonC. V. (Ed.), Assessment in the service of learning (pp. 103–117). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32.
ColemanD., & PimentelS. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
33.
CornoL. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173.
34.
CubanL. (2001). How can I fix it?New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
Darling-hammondL., & BransfordJ. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
EganK. (2010). Learning in depth: A simple innovation that can transform schooling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
EngageNY. (2012). Pedagogical shifts demanded by the Common Core State Standards. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Education.
39.
FullanM. (Ed.). (2005). Fundamental change. New York: Springer.
40.
GardnerJ. (Ed.). (2006). Assessment and learning.London: Sage.
GlaserR. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45, 29–39.
43.
GordonE. (2013). To assess, to teach, to learn: A vision for the future of assessment. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
44.
HaertelE. (2013, June 12). A vision for the future. Paper presented to the Symposium on the Reports of the Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. University of California, Los Angeles.
45.
HarpB. (2006). The handbook of literacy assessment and evaluation. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
HeritageM. (2013). Formative assessment: Making it happen in classroom. Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin.
49.
HeritageM., KimJ., VendlinskiT., & HermanJ. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment?Ed Measurement: I&P, 28(3), 24–31.
50.
HermanJ. L., OsmundsonE., AyalaC., SchneiderS., & TimmsM. (2006). The nature and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices. CSE Tech Report 703.
51.
HermanJ., & LinnR. (2013). On the road to deeper learning: The status of Smarter Balanced and PARCC assessment consortia, CRESST Report 823. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
52.
HermanJ., & HeritageM. (2007, June). Moving from piecemeal to effective formative assessment practice: Moving pictures on the road to student learning. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers Assessment Conference, Nashville TN.
53.
HiebertE. H., & CalfeeR. C. (1992). Assessing literacy: From standardized tests to performances and portfolios. In FarstrupA. E. & SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research says about reading instruction (pp. 70–100). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
54.
KeatingD. (2005). A framework for educational change: Human development in the learning society. In FullanM. (Ed.), Fundamental change (pp. 23–39). New York: Springer.
55.
LabareeD. F. (2010). Someone has to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
LissitzR. W. (Ed.). (2013). Informing the practice of teaching using formative and interim assessment. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
57.
McMillanJ. H. (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
58.
MannH. (1841). Common school journal: Knowledge of common things. Boston: Marsh, Capen, Lyon & Webb.
59.
McDonnellL. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.
60.
McDonnellL. M., & WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal of Education, 120, 2–25.
MosherF. A. (2011). The role of learning progressions in standards-based education reform.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, CPRE.
63.
NGA/CCSSO. (2010). The Common Core Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association; Council of Chief State School Officers.
64.
NitkoA. J. (1989). Designing tests that are integrated with instruction. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 447–474). New York: Macmillan.
65.
NoyceP. E., & HickeyD. T. (2011). New frontiers in formative assessment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66.
PellegrinoJ. (2013). Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities, Science, 340(6130), 320–323.
67.
PellegrinoJ., ChudowskyN., & GlaserR. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
68.
PenningtonJ. L., ObenchainK. M., PapolaA., & KmittaL. (2012, October 12). The Common Core: Educational redeemer or rainmaker. Teachers College Record, ID 16902.
69.
PhyeG. D. (Ed.). (1993). Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, adjustment, and achievement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
70.
PophamW. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
71.
PophamW. J. (2010). Everything school leaders need to know about assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
72.
ReidK. S. (2014). Testing skeptics aim to build support for opt-out strategy. Education Week, 33(24), 19.
73.
ResnickL. B, & ResnickD. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for education reform. In GiffordB. R. & O'ConnorM. C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37–75). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
74.
ReutzelD. R., ChildA., JonesC. D., & ClarkS. K. (2014). Explicit instruction in core reading programs. Elementary School Journal, 114(3), 406–413.
75.
RichB. R., & JanosL. (1994). Skunk works: A personal memoir of my years at Lockheed. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
76.
RitchhartR., ChurchM., & MorrisonK. (2011) Making thinking visible. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
77.
SadlerD. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(1), 119–144.
78.
SadlerR. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77–84.
79.
SchaeferR. J. (1967). The school as a center of inquiry. New York: Harper & Row.
80.
ScrivenM. S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation (Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, and AERA monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
81.
ShepardL. A. (2006). Classroom assessment. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement, 4th Ed, (pp. 623–646). New York: Praeger.
82.
SimonH. J. (1996). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
83.
SnowC., & O'ConnorC. (2013). Close reading and far-reaching classroom discussion: Fostering a vital connection. A policy brief. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
84.
VosniadouS. (Ed.). (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
85.
WiliamD. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
86.
WilsonK. M., & CalfeeR. C., (2012). Inquiry-based formative assessment for improving student learning. In OrtliebE. T. & CheekE. H.Jr. (Eds.), Literacy research, practice, and evaluation: Vol. 1, Using informative assessments for effective literacy practices (pp. 3–37). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
