## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Teaching with eyes open vs. eyes closed**: Formative assessment provides real-time data about student understanding to inform immediate instructional decisions > - **Reveals misconceptions before they embed**: Catch and correct errors during learning rather than after tests when misconceptions are entrenched in schema > - **Requires active data gathering, not self-report**: Students are poor judges of their own understanding due to Dunning-Kruger effect ## Definition **Formative Assessment**: Systematically assessing student understanding during lessons and using results to inform and adjust teaching strategies in real-time. ## Connected To [[Diagnostic Questions]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] | [[Mini-Whiteboards]] | [[Check For Understanding]] | [[Dunning-Kruger Effect]] | [[Schema]] | [[Misconceptions]] | [[Mathemagenic Activities]] | [[Implementation Fidelity]] --- ## The problem without formative assessment Without formative assessment, teachers face two inadequate options for understanding student learning. **Student self-report**: 'Do you understand?' produces systematically invalid data due to the [[Dunning-Kruger Effect]]. Students who most need help are least likely to recognise their confusion (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). **Post-lesson data**: Tests and homework reveal problems only after misconceptions have become embedded in [[Schema]], making correction far more difficult (Chi, 2008). **Craig Barton's analogy**: Teaching without formative assessment is like painting with your eyes closed. You might eventually see the result, but by then it's too late to adjust your approach (Barton, 2018). This creates a predictable pattern: teach, assign practice, discover widespread confusion during marking, reteach, repeat. Formative assessment breaks this cycle. ## Key principles of responsive teaching Formative assessment improves student learning when teachers use the information to adjust instruction (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Meta-analyses show effect sizes ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kingston & Nash, 2011). Black and Wiliam (1998) identified five key elements of effective formative assessment: **Clarifying learning intentions and success criteria**: Students need to understand what they are learning and what success looks like. Clear goals focus effort and enable self-assessment. **Eliciting evidence of student understanding**: Teachers gather information about student thinking during lessons through questions, observations, and student responses. This evidence reveals actual understanding rather than assumptions. **Providing feedback that moves learning forward**: Feedback should give students specific information about how to improve rather than simply judging their work. The focus is on closing the gap between current and desired performance. **Activating students as instructional resources for one another**: Peer assessment and collaborative work allow students to learn from each other. Explaining concepts to peers strengthens understanding for both students. **Activating students as owners of their own learning**: Students develop self-regulation skills through self-assessment and reflection. This metacognitive awareness supports independent learning. Responsive teaching requires three complementary elements. First, participation must be universal. Use [[Mini-Whiteboards]] and similar strategies that elicit responses from all learners, rather than relying on information from a few vocal students (Rosenshine, 2012). Second, assessment occurs frequently during lessons, not just at the end, enabling teachers to catch problems before they compound (Wiliam & Thompson, 2007). Third, teachers interpret assessment data quickly using tools like [[Diagnostic Questions]] to enable immediate instructional response (Black & Wiliam, 2009). Together, these create adaptive teaching where teachers slow down, reteach, or add scaffolding based on actual student understanding rather than curriculum expectations (Heritage, 2010). ## Assessment and responsive action during lessons Effective formative assessment requires two complementary components: gathering data and acting on it. Teachers can use [[Mini-Whiteboards]] for immediate visual feedback from all students, [[Diagnostic Questions]] to reveal specific misconceptions, observation of student work during independent practice for common errors, and exit tickets to inform next lesson planning. However, this data remains inert without appropriate response. Different success rates demand different actions (Rosenshine, 2012; Wilson et al., 2019). When more than 80 percent of students demonstrate success, teachers continue with planned instruction as students are ready to progress. Success rates between 40 and 80 percent warrant peer explanation strategies like [[Turn and Talk]], followed by re-assessment, as some students can effectively teach others. When success falls below 40 percent, teachers stop and reteach using a different approach or different examples. When a common misconception emerges across multiple students, teachers address it directly through cognitive conflict, exposing the logical contradiction in students' thinking (Limón, 2001). The key principle is allowing the data to drive teaching decisions rather than following a fixed lesson plan (Wiliam, 2011). ## Outcomes and limitations Formative assessment generates benefits for both teachers and students. Teachers gain diagnostic data about student understanding (Heritage, 2010), identify topics requiring reteaching before progression (Black & Wiliam, 2009), and use findings to inform future lesson planning and curriculum pacing (Wiliam & Thompson, 2007), avoiding assumptions about what students have learned (Sadler, 1989). Students receive immediate feedback and correction (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), preventing misconceptions from becoming embedded in their schemas (Chi, 2008), and experience appropriate levels of challenge (Wilson et al., 2019). When coupled with a culture where errors are treated as learning opportunities, formative assessment supports risk-taking (Kapur, 2008). Several pitfalls limit effectiveness. Relying on student self-report produces invalid data, as students cannot accurately judge their own understanding. Basing decisions on a vocal minority rather than representative data from all learners distorts instructional choices. Formative assessment without responsive action amounts to data collection without purpose. Quick fixes during lessons may address symptoms without targeting underlying conceptual gaps that require more substantial instructional change. ## Practical examples When [[Mini-Whiteboards]] reveal that 60 percent of students are adding fractions incorrectly, the appropriate response is to stop the planned lesson, address the misconception directly, and re-assess before moving forward. An exit ticket that shows students are confident despite making systematic errors signals a need to plan next lesson instruction specifically around that misconception rather than proceeding with planned content. When [[Diagnostic Questions]] during a worked example reveal gaps in prerequisite knowledge, teachers return to foundation concepts before continuing with new material rather than assuming students can catch up later. ## References Barton, C. (2018). *How I wish I'd taught maths: Lessons learned from research, conversations with experts, and 12 years of mistakes*. John Catt Educational. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. *Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice*, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. *Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability*, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), *International handbook of research on conceptual change* (pp. 61-82). Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. *Review of Educational Research*, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Heritage, M. (2010). *Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom*. Corwin Press. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. *Cognition and Instruction*, 26(3), 379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669 Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. *Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice*, 30(4), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 77(6), 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. *Learning and Instruction*, 11(4-5), 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. *Instructional Science*, 18(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 Wiliam, D. (2011). *Embedded formative assessment*. Solution Tree Press. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), *The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning* (pp. 53-82). Erlbaum. Wilson, R. C., Shenhav, A., Straccia, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2019). The eighty five percent rule for optimal learning. *Nature Communications*, 10, 4646. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12552-4