Skip to main content
Book cover

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 311–321Cite as

Formative and Stealth Assessment

Abstract

Assessing generally refers to the process of gathering information about a person relative to specific competencies and other attributes, in formal or informal learning contexts. This should lead to valid and reliable inferences about competency levels, which in turn may be used for diagnostic and/or predictive purposes. Too often, classroom and other high-stakes assessments are used for purposes of grading, promotion, and placement, but not to enhance learning. In this chapter, we focus on formative assessment which posits that assessment should (a) encourage and support, not undermine, the learning process for learners and teachers; (b) provide formative information whenever possible (i.e., give useful feedback during the learning process instead of a single judgment at the end); and (c) be responsive to what is known about how people learn, generally and developmentally. This type of assessment has as its primary goal improvement of learning, which is critical to support the kinds of learning outcomes and processes necessary for students to succeed in the twenty-first century. It is referred to as “formative assessment,” or assessment for learning, in contrast to “summative assessment” (or assessment of learning). This chapter overviews the role of formative assessment in education generally, and also touches on stealth assessment specifically—an ­evidence-based approach to weaving assessments directly into learning environments (Shute, Computer games and instruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers, 2011).

Keywords

  • Competency
  • Evidence-centered design (ECD)
  • Formative assessment
  • Stealth assessment

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25
  • Chapter length: 11 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   269.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4614-3185-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 25.1
Fig. 25.2
Fig. 25.3

References

  • Almond, R. G., & Mislevy, R. J. (1999). Graphical models and computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(3), 223–237.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, S., & Pain, H. (1995). “Did I say what I think I said, and do you agree with me?”: Inspecting and questioning the student model. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of AI-ED’95—7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 501–508). Virginia: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappius, S., & Chappius, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Feedback timing and student control in the LISP intelligent tutoring system. In D. Bierman, J. Brueker, & J. Sandberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (pp. 64–72). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2004). Indicators of quality of teacher professional development and instructional change using data from surveys of enacted curriculum: Findings from NSF MSP-RETA project. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optical experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elawar, M., & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162–173.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, M., Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Addressing the testing challenge with a web-based e-assessment system that tutors as it assesses. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 513–543.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16–25). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, D., & Mitrovic, A. (2002). Supporting learning by opening the student model. In S. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Proceedings 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 453–462). Springer-Verlag London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindo, C., Rose, K., & Gomez, L. M. (2004). Searching for Steven Spielberg: Introducing iMovie to the high school English classroom: A closer look at what open-ended technology project designs can do to promote engaged learning. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 606–609). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. In V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 105–132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the no child left behind act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, J. (1998). A scrutable user modelling shell for user-adapted interaction (Doctoral thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia). Retrieved from http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~judy/Homec/Pubs/thesis.pdf.

  • Kim, C. (2007). Effects of motivation, volition and belief change strategies on attitudes, study habits and achievement in mathematics education. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K., McLaughlin, E., & Heffernan, N. (2010). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an on-line formative assessment and tutoring system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 489–510.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. R. (2009). Interim assessment use in Iowa elementary schools (Doctoral thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA). Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/393/.

  • Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59, 439–483.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • *Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 1(1), 3–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2009). A process—Not a test. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4–13.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. L. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2007). Tensions, trends, tools, and technologies: Time for an educational sea change. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 139–187). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2009). Simply assessment. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 1–11. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0014.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • *Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503–524). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Graf, E. A., & Hansen, E. (2005). Designing adaptive, diagnostic math assessments for individuals with and without visual disabilities. In L. PytlikZillig, R. Bruning, & M. Bodvarsson (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 169–202). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Hansen, E. G., & Almond, R. G. (2008). You can’t fatten a hog by weighing it—or can you? Evaluating an assessment for learning system called ACED. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(4), 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 105–114.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • *Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2008). Adaptive technologies. In J. M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 277–294). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2010). Intelligent systems. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B. McGaw (Eds.), Third edition of the international encyclopedia of education (pp. 75–80). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, L. S., & Gitomer, D. G. (1996). Intelligent tutoring and assessment built on an understanding of a technical problem-solving task. Instructional Science, 24, 223–258.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Symonds, K. W. (2004). After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2006). Does assessment hinder learning? Speech delivered at the ETS Europe Breakfast Salon. Retrieved from http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/adelaidehills/files/links/williams_speech.pdf.

  • *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. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapata-Rivera, D., & Greer, J. E. (2004). Interacting with inspectable Bayesian models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 127–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapata-Rivera, D., Vanwinkle, W., Shute, V. J., Underwood, J. S., & Bauer, M. (2007). English ABLE. In R. Luckin, K. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education—Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 323–330). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida State University, 1114 W. Call Street, 3064453, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4453, USA

    Valerie J. Shute & Yoon Jeon Kim

Authors
  1. Valerie J. Shute
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoon Jeon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerie J. Shute .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shute, V.J., Kim, Y.J. (2014). Formative and Stealth Assessment. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25

Download citation