Abstract
In response to US accountability policies and yearly performance targets, school districts are implementing periodic or benchmark assessments to provide teachers with data to improve instruction and student achievement. The tests are typically given quarterly to track student progress toward yearly accountability goals, as well as to inform teaching and identify individualized instructional enhancements to foster student achievement. Fifteen focus group sessions were conducted with 67 elementary and middle school teachers from several school districts surrounding an urban metropolitan area in Virginia to explore and better understand the ways in which benchmark testing can be used effectively as formative assessment. Participants had a range of experience from 1 to 3 to over 20 years in the classroom. The perceived quality of test items, timeliness in receiving results, accessibility of the data, and opportunities to review and discuss the results with others clearly influenced how teachers’ used the assessment results. Teachers described using benchmark test results formatively to make a variety of instructional adjustments, including modifications to whole class instruction, working with students in small groups, and providing individualized support, though important factors influenced the extent of use. The findings of this study suggest that under appropriate conditions, including having valid and transparent test items, support, immediacy of results, and time to discuss with others, benchmark testing programs have the potential of providing meaningful formative assessment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Expanding views about formative classroom assessment: A review of the literature. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: theory into practice (pp. 43-62). New York: Teachers College Press.
Brown, R. S., & Coughlin, E. (2007). The predictive validity of selected benchmark assessments used in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Available http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Brunner, C., Fasca, C., Heinze, J., Honey, M., Light, D., & Mandinach, E. (2005). Linking data and learning: the grow network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(30), 214–267.
Christman, J. B., Neild, R. C., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Lui, R., Mitchell, C., & Travers, E. (2009). Making the most of interim assessment data: lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review-teacher learning: what matters?’. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 4653.
Davidson, K.L., & Frohbieter, G. (2011). District adoption and implementation of interim and benchmark assessments. CRESST Report 806. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Goertz, M., Oláh, L., & Riggan, M. (2009). Can interim assessments be used for instructional change? CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on Issues and Research in Education and Finance. Available http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rb_51_role%20policy%20brief_final%20w eb.pdf.
Goren, P. (2010). Interim assessments as a strategy for improvement: easier said than done. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 125–129.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessment the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91.
Henderson, S., Petrosino, A.,Guckenburg, S. & Hamilton, S.(2008). A second follow-up year for “Measuring How Benchmark Assessments Affect Student Achievement”. (REL Technical Brief, REL 2008-No. 002). Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
Huberman, M. A, & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative reseacher's companion. London: Sage Publications.
Kerr, K., Marsh, J., Ikemoto, G., Darilek, H., & Barney, J. (2006). Strategies to promote data use of instructional improvement: actions, outcomes and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496–520.
Konstantopoulos, S., Miller, S. R., & van der Ploeg, A. (2013). The impact of Indiana’s system of interim assessments on mathematics and reading achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 481–499.
Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lachat, M., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333–349.
Lange, T. M. (2014). Interim assessment data: A case study on modifying instruction based on benchmark feedback (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University).
Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85.
Marsh, J., Pane, J., & Hamilton, L. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: evidence from recent RAND research. Washington, DC: RAND.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McMillan, J. H. (2007). Formative classroom assessment: the key to improving student achievement. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: theory into practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
McMillan, J. H. (2010). The practical implications of educational aims and contexts for formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 41–58). New York: Routledge.
McMillan, J. H. (Ed.). (2013). Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Murnane, R., Sharkey, N., & Boudett, K. (2005). Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 269–280.
Nelson, M. & Eddy, R. (2008). Evaluative thinking and action in the classroom. In T. Berry & R. Eddy (Eds.). Consequence of No Child Left Behind for Educational Evaluation: New Directions for Evaluation, 177, 37–46.
Niemi, D., Wang, J., Wang, H., Vallone, J., & Griffin, N. (2007). Recommendations for building a valid benchmark assessment system: second report to the Jackson Public Schools. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Oláh, L., Lawrence, N., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: how teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 226–245.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedulla, J., Abrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Testing and Public Policy.
Perie, M., Marion, S., & Gong, B. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: a framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 5–13.
Peterson, J. (2007). Learning facts: the brave new world of data-informed instruction. Education Next, 7(1), 36–42.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Riggan, M., & Oláh, L. N. (2011). Locating interim assessments within teachers’ assessment practice. Educational Assessment, 16, 1–14.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
Shepard, L. A., Davidson, K. L., & Bowman, R. (2011). How middle-school mathematics teachers use interim and benchmark assessment data. CRESST report 807. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
Supovitz, J., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: how innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education: University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.
Symonds, K. (2004). After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data. San Francisco: Learning Point Association and Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.
Trimble, S., Gay, A., & Matthews, J. (2005). Using test score data to focus instruction. Middle School Journal, 36(4), 26–32.
Vogel, L., Rau, W., Baker, P., & Ashby, D. (2006). Bringing assessment literacy to the local school: a decade of reform initiatives in Illinois. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), 39–55.
Wayman, J., & Cho, V. (2009). Preparing educators to effectively use student data systems. In T. Kowalksi & T. Lasley II (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 89–104). New York: Routledge.
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2007). A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: theory into practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239–259.
Yeh, S. (2006). High-stakes testing: can rapid assessment reduce the pressure? Teachers College Record, 108(4), 621–661.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abrams, L.M., McMillan, J.H. & Wetzel, A.P. Implementing benchmark testing for formative purposes: teacher voices about what works. Educ Asse Eval Acc 27, 347–375 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9214-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9214-9