Skip to main content

Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning

Abstract

The article draws from 199 sources on assessment, learning, and motivation to present a detailed decomposition of the values, theories, and goals of formative assessment. This article will discuss the extent to which formative feedback actualizes and reinforces self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies among students. Theoreticians agree that SRL is predictive of improved academic outcomes and motivation because students acquire the adaptive and autonomous learning characteristics required for an enhanced engagement with the learning process and subsequent successful performance. The theory of formative assessment is found to be a unifying theory of instruction, which guides practice and improves the learning process by developing SRL strategies among learners. In a postmodern era characterized by rapid technical and scientific advance and obsolescence, there is a growing emphasis on the acquisition of learning strategies which people may rely on across the entire span of their life. Research consistently finds that the self-regulation of cognitive and affective states supports the drive for lifelong learning by: enhancing the motivational disposition to learn, enriching reasoning, refining meta-cognitive skills, and improving performance outcomes. The specific purposes of the article are to provide practitioners, administrators and policy-makers with: (a) an account of the very extensive conceptual territory that is the ‘theory of formative assessment’ and (b) how the goals of formative feedback operate to reveal recondite learning processes, thereby reinforcing SRL strategies which support learning, improve outcomes and actualize the drive for lifelong learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Abrams, L. M. (2007). Implications of high-stakes testing for the use of formative classroom assessment. In H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 8–28). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. (2008). Why this and why now? Introduction to the special issue on metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 369–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allal, L., & Lopez, L. M. (2005). Formative assessment of learning: A review of publications in French. In Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms, (pp. 241–254). Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Andersen, R. J., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. T., Zuiker, S. J., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Hickey, D. T. (2007). Classroom discourse as a tool to enhance formative assessment and practise in science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1721–1744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1997). Mathematical problem solving in small groups: Exploring the interplay of students’ metacognitive behaviors, perceptions, and ability levels. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artzt, A., & Yaloz-Femia, S. (1999). Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem solving. In L. Stiff and F. Curio (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12: 1999 yearbook (pp. 115–126). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Assessment Action Group /AiFL Programme Management Group (AAG/APMG). (2002–2008). AifL—Assessment is for learning. Retrieved from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/assess

  • Assessment Reform Group (ARG). (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: Cambridge University, School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, C. C. (2005). Formative assessment guideposts. Science Scope, 28(4), 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 71–81. New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. J. (2000). Achieving co-ordination in collaborative problem solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Jones, J. (2006). Formative assessment and the learning and teaching of MFL: Sharing the language learning road map with learners. Language Learning Journal, 34, 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & McCormick, R. (2010). Reflections and new directions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 493–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9–25). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group-work on pupil–pupil and teacher–pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 750–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose, J., & Rengel, Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote student-centered self-regulated learning in higher education. US-China Education Review, 6(12), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinck, I. (2007). Situated cognition, dynamic systems, and art: On artistic creativity and aesthetic experience. Janus Head, 9(2), 407–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum: NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, L. B. (2001). Student self-assessment: Making standards come alive. Classroom Leadership, 5(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauley, M. C., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). FA techniques to support student motivation and achievement. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, K., Nam, J., & Lee, H. (2001). The effects of formative assessment with detailed feedback on students’ science learning achievement and attitudes regarding formative assessment. Science Education International, 12(2), 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 70–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, J. (1983). Textuality, communication and media power. In H. Davis & P. Walton (Eds.), Language, Image, Media (pp. 266–281). London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornford, I. R. (2002). Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(4), 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossouard, B. (2011). Using formative assessment to support complex learning in conditions of social adversity. Assessment in Education, 81(1), 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin Crick, R. (2007). Learning how to learn: The dynamic assessment of learning power. The Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin Crick, R., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI Project. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 247–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster (1938/1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004). Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. The Psychological Record, 54, 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, S. (2010). The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 325–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyon, C. (1992). Une pratique d’autoévaluation des apprentissages au primaire. In D. Laveault (Ed.), Les pratiques d’évaluation en education (pp. 75–86). Montmagny: Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyon, C., & Juneau, R. (1991). Faire participer l’élève à l’évaluation de ses apprentissages. Laval, Québec: Beauchemin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. New York: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessments: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessments in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14 (7). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=7

  • Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2001). Lifelong learning: A postmodern condition of education? Adult Education Quarterly, 51(4), 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E., & Peshkin, A. (Eds.). (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Feather, J., & Sturges, P. (1997). International encyclopedia of information and library science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. H. (1992). Is management still a science? Harvard Business Review, 70(6), 26–38. Nov–Dec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard, M. (1999). Debates in SLA studies: Redefining SLA as an institutional phenomenon. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 544–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. (1998). The effects of collective teacher efficacy on student achievement in urban public elementary schools, Dissertation, Ohio State University.

  • Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37, 479–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated meta-cognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 192–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2006). The role of assessment in developing motivation for learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 61–80). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M., Short, C., & Roberts, C. (2003). Reflecting on reflective learning: The case of geography, earth and environmental sciences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 133–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. University of Auckland, New Zealand: Inaugural professorial lecture. Retrieved from citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.8465.pdf

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). CCSSO: Washington, D.C.

  • Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., & Silver, D. (2010). Capturing quality in formative assessment practice: Measurement challenges. CRESST Report 770. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R770.pdf

  • Herrmann, J., & Höfer, C. (1999). Evaluation in der Schule – Unterrichtsevaluation, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh.

  • Hinchliffe, G. (2006). Re-thinking lifelong learning. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25(1/2), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins, B. and Deakin Crick, R. (2008) Learning to Learn and Civic Competences: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? EUR 23360. Ispra: European Commission—IEA (2008) International Civic and Citizenship Education Study Assessment Framework. Amsterdam: IEA.

  • Hoskins, B., & Fredriksson, U. (2008). Learning to Learn: What is it and can it be measured? European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  • Hutchinson, C., & Hayward, L. (2005). The journey so far: Assessment for learning in Scotland. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G., & Chang, H. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers and Education, 56(4), 1023–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irving, K. (2007). Teaching science in the 21st century: Formative assessment improves student learning. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=53559

  • Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 349–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition and individualization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpose? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 477–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, E. C. (1962). The fully functioning self. In A.W. Combs (Ed.). Perceiving behaving becoming: A new focus for education. ASCD 1962 Yearbook. Washington D.C: ASCD Pub.

  • Kendall, J. S., Ryan, S., Weeks, S., Alpert, A., Schwols, A., & Moore, L. (2008). 21st Century skills: What do we expect of students? Denver: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keshtan, M. H., Ramzaninezhad, R., Kordshooli, S., & Panahi, P. M. (2010). The relationship between collective efficacy and coaching behaviors in professional volleyball league of Iran clubs. World Journal of Sport Sciences, 3(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1995). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köller, O. (2005). Formative assessment in classrooms: A review of the empirical German literature. In Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (pp. 265–279). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and meta-cognitive reflection reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self-regulated learning theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(4), 381–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutnick, P., & Manson, I. (1998). Social life in the classroom: Toward a relational concept of social skills for use in the classroom. In A. Campbell & S. Muncer (Eds.), The social child. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 469–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looney, J., & Poskitt, J. (2005). New Zealand: Embedding formative assessment in multiple policy initiatives. In Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (pp. 177–184). Centre for Educational Innovation and Research. Paris: OECD.

  • Looney, J., Laneve, C., & Moscato, M. T. (2005). Italy: A system in transition. In Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (pp. 163–175). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal account of soviet psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintyre, L. M., Buck, G., & Beckenhauer, A. (2007). Formative assessment requires artistic vision. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(4), 1–23. Retrieved from http://ijea.asu.edu/v8n4/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, W. T., & Ing, D. (2005). Delayed feedback disrupts the procedural-learning system but not the hypothesis-testing system in perceptual category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(1), 100–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, W. T., Ashby, F. G., & Bohil, C. J. (2003). Delayed feedback effects on rule-based and information-integration category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 650–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. Snow and M. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Mansell, W., James, M. & the Assessment Reform Group. (2009). Assessment in schools. Fit for purpose? A commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme.

  • Matthew, C. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Developing experience-based (tacit) knowledge through reflection. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 530–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2002). Reflection: Improving teaching and students learning. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 55–77). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaslin, M. (2004). Co-regulation of opportunity, activity and identity in student motivation: Elaboration on Vygotskian themes. In S. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited: Research on socio-cultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 4) (pp. 249–274). Information Age Publishing.

  • McCombs, B. L. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 51–82). NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1009–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehmet, B. (2010). Making learning visible in kindergarten classrooms: Pedagogical documentation as a formative assessment technique. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(7), 1439–1449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Wegerif, R. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, D., & Brackley, M. (2004). Making connections: Teachers’ use of children’s prior knowledge in whole class discussion. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(3), 263–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisan, M. (1992). Beyond intrinsic motivation: Cultivating a sense of the desirable. In K. Oser, A. Dick, & J. L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 126–138). San Francisco Jossey-Bass.

  • Niss, M. (1993a). Investigations in to assessment in mathematics education. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M. (1993b). Cases of assessment in mathematics education. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/CERI. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: CERI/OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/CERI. (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative assessment. International Conference, Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. Paris: CERI/OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/31/40600533.pdf

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pape, S. J., Bell, C. V., & Yetkin, İ. E. (2003). Developing mathematical thinking and self-regulated learning: A teaching experiment in a seventh-grade mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(3), 179–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org

  • Paskevich, D. M., Brawley, L. R., Dorsch, K. D., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1999). Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Group Dynamics, 3(2), 210–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perels, F., Dignath, C., & Schmitz, B. (2009). Is it possible to improve mathematical achievement by means of self-regulation strategies? Evaluation of an intervention in regular math classes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(1), 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: P. P. M. Z. M. Boekaerts (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451–502). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

  • Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 250–284). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2006). Phony formative assessments: Buyer beware! Educational Leadership, 64(3), 86–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 199–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Walker, R. (2002). The social construction of interest in a learning community. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 153–182). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Developing collective classroom efficacy: The teacher’s role as community organizer. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction. NY: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rilling, J., Gutman, D., Zeh, T., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G & Kuts, C. (2002). A neural basis for social operation. Neuron, 35, 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. NY: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthven, K. (1994). Better judgment: Rethinking assessment in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(4), 433–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychen, D. S. (2003). Key competencies: Meeting important challenges in life. In D. S. Rychen & L. Hersch Salganik (Eds.), Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. (2004). Neighborhood and community: Collective efficacy and community safety. New Economy, 11(2), 106–133. Retrieved from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/sampson/articles/2004_NewEc.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science regulation: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1998). Teaching elementary students to self-regulate practice of mathematical skill with modeling. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 137–159). NY: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. (2005a). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L.A. (2005b). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. ETS Invitational Conference 2005. The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning, New York. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/ccii/images/stories/ccii_pdfs/shepard%20formative%20assessment%20caveat%20emptor.pdf

  • Stajkovic, A. D., & Lee, D. (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between collective efficacy and group performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington D.C.

  • Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (Eds.). (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 51(1), 119–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1987). Overcoming epistemology. In Baynes et al. (Eds.), After philosophy: End or transformation? Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., & Williams, M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness training) help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(1), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, I. (2004). Heidegger’s perfectionist philosophy of education in Being and Time. Continental Philosophy Review, 37(4), 439–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townshend, J., Moos, L., & Skov, P. (2005). Denmark: Building on a tradition of democracy and dialogue in schools. In Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms, (pp. 117–128). Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Turner, J. C. (2006). Measuring self-regulation: A focus on activity. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 293–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980, April 11). Retrieved from http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1988/01/19880101%2003-03%20AM/Ch_X_10p.pdf.

  • Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., & Kasurien, H. (2005). Finland: Emphasising development instead of competition and comparison. In Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms, (pp. 149–162). Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York and London: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S.-L., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256–2268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem-solving strategies and group processes in small groups learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 248–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering meta-cognition development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, E. M. (1984). Holisticism. College Composition and Communication, 35(4), 385–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2004) Assessment and the regulation of learning. Paper presented at Invited Symposium ‘What does it mean for classroom assessment to be valid? Reliable?’ at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April 2004, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/WiliamAssessmentarticle_201263_7.pdf

  • Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2007). A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. In H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 29–42). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing-yi Cheng, R., Lam, S-f, & Chung-yan Chan, J. (2008). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Stockley, D. B. (1998). Computing technologies as sites for developing self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 106–136). NY: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, B. (1977). A phenomenological perspective on curriculum and learning. In A. Molnar & J. Zahorik (Eds.), Curriculum theory. Washington: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self–regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., et al. (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, V., & Kim, D. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–25). NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motivation to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Clark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clark, I. Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 24, 205–249 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6

Keywords

  • Formative assessment
  • Feedback
  • Self-regulated learning
  • SRL
  • Meta-cognition
  • Social cognitive theory (SCT)
  • Social context
  • Sociocultural
  • Lifelong learning
  • Collective efficacy
  • Self-efficacy
  • Achievement
  • Motivation
  • Autonomy