Definition of assessment for learning

What is formative assessment and how does it relate to assessment for learning?

The philosophical principle of assessment for learning considers students as agents in their learning. This approach is usually referred to as ‘formative assessment’ and ‘Assessment for Learning’ in much literature. These terms are related as they both imply a similar philosophical principle of using assessment as a learning tool rather than for certification. However, they are different in terms of their timeframe and emphasis. The term Assessment for Learning was coined by the ARG, based on discussions around understandings of ‘formative assessment’ (Assessment Reform Group, 1999). Therefore, to gain an insight into Assessment for Learning, it is important to review definitions and understandings of formative assessment.

There is no global consensus on what formative assessment or assessment for learning means (Assessment Reform Group, 1999; Bennett, 2011; Cech, 2008; Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009; Torrance, 2012). This term is interpreted differently by many authors from different sociocultural contexts, including in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other Asian Pacific countries such as Australia and New Zealand (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Klenowski, 2009). Various interpretations of

formative assessment and the advantages and disadvantages of each are examined in this review to highlight the development in understanding of Assessment for Learning over time and contexts. Importantly, this summary finds a definition most relevant to the Vietnamese higher education context.

The first definition can be traced back to Black and Wiliam (1998b, p. 7) who claimed that formative assessment comprised “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”. This definition highlights feedback as central to formative assessment and its transformational function in relation to teaching and learning. Although this definition does not describe when formative assessment occurs and what kinds of activities are conducted as formative assessment, it provides the foundation for a variety of subsequent interpretations of formative assessment.

Another common interpretation of formative assessment is that it can serve a diagnostic function to identify student learning difficulties. According to Stobart (2008), such an understanding is dominant in the United States and in France. This may originate from the explanation of Bloom and his colleagues (1971) about the diagnostic potential of formative evaluation for mastery learning. For example, in the United States, Cech (2008) states formative assessment is interpreted as

[A] tool that teachers use to measure student grasp of the specific topics and skills they are currently teaching. It is a “midstream” tool to identify specific student misconceptions and mistakes while the material is being taught (Cech, 2008, p. 1).

Likewise, in France, Allal and Lopez (2005) describe three kinds of formative assessment, including interactive, retroactive, and proactive. The retroactive

[o]ccurs when a formative assessment is conducted after completion of a phase of teaching and allows identification of the instructional objectives attained or not attained by each student. The feedback from the assessment leads to the selection of means for correcting or overcoming learning difficulties encountered by some students (Allal & Lopez, 2005, p. 245).

Such interpretations have led to serious consequences. First, in some cases, the purpose of formative assessment has been narrowed to diagnosis or resulted in mini- summative tests which have inhibited the development of formative assessment theory

and distorted assessment practices (Kahl, 2010; Sadler, 1989; Stobart, 2008; Swaffield, 2011). Second, test publishers, in the pursuit of profits, have developed formative test banks that are free of important contextual considerations (Bennett, 2011; Cech, 2008).

Formative assessment is also understood as a process in countries such as the United States and Canada (Heritage, 2009; Popham, 2008). Formative assessment occurs during the teaching and learning cycle that involves the teacher making decisions about students’ learning, providing constructive feedback to support students’ learning, and adapting teaching to cater for individual and diverse learning needs. This understanding clarifies the main characteristics of formative assessment in terms of timing (during teaching and learning), site (classroom/online), frequency (high frequency), teacher’s task (giving students constructive feedback about their responses and adapting their teaching), and purpose (to support student learning). However, this interpretation has been criticised as it only focuses on the role of the teacher in giving feedback to students. The role of students and their peers seems to be ignored (Torrance & Pryor, 1998).

The most common understanding of formative assessment entails a contrast to summative assessment. Attempts to define formative assessment in terms of time, purpose, and level of generalisation started from the work of Bloom et al. (1971), and remained in many debates about the term formative (Assessment Reform Group, 1999; Bloom et al., 1971). In the past, timing was the main aspect to identify formative assessment. The majority of authors now agree that the prime difference between formative assessment and summative assessment is the purpose of using assessment data (Bennett, 2011; Newton, 2007; Sadler, 1989; Wiliam, 2006), which, in formative assessment is to facilitate students’ ongoing learning.

The recognition and development of the potential of assessment to support learning must include the ARG’s contribution. The ARG introduced the term Assessment for Learning instead of the term formative assessment to distinguish it from Assessment of Learning or summative assessment (Assessment Reform Group, 1999; Bennett, 2011). According to Crooks (2011) the use of these alternative terms can help to clarify “the nature” of two purposes in which assessment data is applied (p. 71) . The first definition of AfL was provided by ARG as

[T]he process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there (Assessment Reform Group, 2002a, p. 2). This definition describes tasks implemented by both teachers and students in assessment for learning, which include helping students to reach their learning goals. The active role of students is very evident in this definition. However, this definition does not put enough emphasis on the aspect of AfL as everyday classroom practice. In addition, the words in the definition have sometimes resulted in different explanations (Klenowski, 2009; Stobart, 2008). One of the misinterpretations has been indicated by Klenowski (2009) as

[A]n exhortation to teachers to (summatively) test their students frequently to assess the levels they attain on prescribed national/state scales in order to fix their failings and target the next level. In this scenario, scores, which are intended to be indicators of, or proxies for, learning, become the goals themselves. Real and sustained learning is sacrificed to performance on a test (p. 263).

For these reasons, the Third International Conference on Assessment for Learning held in 2009 in New Zealand proposed a new definition of AfL as

[A] part of everyday practice by students, teachers and peers that seeks, reflects upon and responds to information from dialogue, demonstration and observation in ways that enhance ongoing learning (cited in Klenowski, 2009, p. 264).

This second definition of AfL is different from the previous definition in that it indicates AfL is an everyday practice which occurs as a part of teaching and learning. Actors of assessment activities are not only teachers but also students and their peers. They all reflect and respond to assessment data through dialogue, demonstration and observation with the purpose of enhancing ongoing learning. This definition is considered as an operational definition, which describes particularly what AfL is and how it can be used in practice.

The understanding of formative assessment as assessment for learning has clarified the concept of formative assessment, particularly in comparison with summative assessment. However, it is also problematic in that both formative and summative assessments have the potential to support learning and both are important

in education (Bennett, 2011; Broadfoot, 2007; Harlen, 2005; Stiggins, 2005). To some extent, final tests can also motivate students to learn. The dilemma is that by contrasting formative with summative assessment, the positive aspect of formative assessment becomes idealised (Torrance, 2012). As Torrance argues, formative assessment, as understood by ARG, is always presented as a “good thing” for student learning (Torrance, 2012, p. 327). Yet summative assessment can have a formative function, and formative assessment may not always result in positive benefits to student learning.

Some authors have been sceptical about the existence of formative assessment as one type of assessment (Bennett, 2011; Newton, 2007, 2010; Wiliam, 2006). They argue that the promotion of learning is the function of all assessment. Newton (2007, 2010) identified three levels of assessment purpose, including the judgment level, the decision level and the impact level. The term formative is associated with the decision level of assessment while summative assessment is used for the purpose of judgement. From this argument, Newton proposed that there is no particular type of assessment as formative assessment; rather, the focus should be on the purposes of using assessment data. When assessment results are used to identify students’ learning needs and to adjust subsequent teaching and learning activities to improve learning, it is a formative use of assessment data.

Carless and his colleagues in Hong Kong have coined the term ‘learning-oriented assessment’ (Carless, 2015; Carless et al., 2006). This term, it is anticipated, will help to avoid confusion in thinking and practices of assessment for learning. Learning- oriented assessment is identified by three main elements: assessment tasks that are designed to help students achieve desired learning outcomes; involve students as self- evaluators; and involve feedback as feed forward. This approach provides fundamental principles and characteristics to identify assessment which is designed for learning.

Using sociocultural theories of learning as the theoretical orientation, this study aims to examine how the use of assessment in the interactions between the teacher and the students, and peer to peer in the classroom can support students’ ongoing learning. Therefore, the second definition of AfL, which is linked to the ARG’s arguments about the characteristics of AfL, is the most suitable interpretation for this study, as it not only offers philosophical principles of assessment for learning, emphasising the central role of the student in their own learning, but also provides a comprehensive description

on how assessment for learning could be implemented in practices through classroom interactions. The following section details these characteristics of AfL.

Characteristics of Assessment for Learning

To distinguish AfL from other types of classroom assessment, the ARG (1999, p. 7) identified seven characteristics of assessment that promote learning:

• It is embedded in a view of teaching and learning of which it is an essential part

• It involves sharing learning goals with students

• It aims to help students to know and to recognise the standards they are aiming for

• It involves students in self-assessment

• It provides feedback which leads to students recognising their next steps and how to take them

• It is underpinned by the confidence that every student can improve

• It involves both the teacher and students reviewing and reflecting on assessment data.

These characteristics demonstrate how assessment can be used to support student learning at classroom level. While understandings of AfL have evolved, along with the second definition of AfL, the seven characteristics identified by the ARG were used as a framework to interpret the practice of AfL in EU.

Having provided an overview of the various interpretations of AfL throughout the years, discussion now turns to the question: How do assessment practices for learning fulfil the important role of supporting learning?

2.2.3 Role of assessment for learning and its effectiveness in practice