Zusammenfassung
Formatives Assessment gilt als eines der wirksamsten Rahmenkonzepte zur Förderung schulischen Lernens. Es bezeichnet die lernbegleitende Beurteilung von Schülerleistung mit dem Ziel, diagnostische Informationen zu nutzen, um Unterricht und Lernen zu verbessern. Grundlegende Merkmale von formativem Assessment sind die Klärung von Lernzielen, die Diagnose der individuellen Leistung sowie eine darauf basierende Rückmeldung und Förderung. Die Gestaltung von formativem Assessment reicht von spontanem on-the-fly-Assessment bis hin zu im Voraus geplantem, formalisiertem und curricular eingebettetem Assessment. Studien untermauern die lernförderliche Wirkung von formativem Assessment, wobei diese von der konkreten Gestaltung abhängt. Obwohl politische, wissenschaftliche und schulische Entwicklungen zur Implementation von formativem Assessment beitragen, ist die Umsetzung nach wie vor herausfordernd. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird der aktuelle Forschungsstand dargelegt, indem eine begriffliche Bestimmung und Charakterisierung des Konstrukts vorgenommen wird, empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit präsentiert sowie implementationsrelevante Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen beschrieben werden.
Abstract
Formative assessment is considered one of the most effective frameworks to foster learning. It is defined as assessment of student performance aimed at providing diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning. Basic characteristics of formative assessment are the clarification of learning goals, the diagnosis of individual performance, as well as the provision of feedback and individual differentiation based on the diagnostic information. The design of formative assessment varies from spontaneous on-the-fly assessment to planned and formalized curricular-embedded assessment. Studies support the positive effect of formative assessment on learning with its impact varying depending on the concrete implementation. Although there are developments in politics, science, and schools contributing to the implementation of formative assessment, transfer into practice remains challenging. The present paper describes the current state of research by defining and characterizing the construct, presenting empirical results on its efficacy, and by addressing developments and challenges associated with its implementation.
Notes
Es wird deutlich, dass die Klassifikation formativen Assessments eng orientiert ist an der Unterscheidung von Diagnosemöglichkeiten (z. B. Beobachtung vs. Testung). Sie geht darüber hinaus aber auch, zumindest in Teilen, mit verschiedenen Ausprägung weiterer Merkmale formativen Assessments einher (z. B. spontane mündliche vs. schriftliche Rückmeldung).
Angelo und Cross (1993) postulieren beispielsweise folgende Schritte bei der Implementation formativen Assessments: drei Schritte der Planung ([1] Auswahl einer Klasse in der das Assessment durchgeführt wird, [2] Fokussierung eines spezifischen Lerngegenstandes bzw. Lernziels, [3] Auswahl einer Assessmenttechnik); drei Schritte der Durchführung ([4] Durchführung der Unterrichtsstunde, die sich auf den Lerngegenstand bezieht, [5] Durchführung des Assessments, [6] Analyse der Daten) und drei Phasen der Reaktion ([7] Interpretation der Ergebnisse und Ableitung von Fördermaßnahmen, [8] Rückmeldung der Ergebnisse an die Schülerinnen und Schüler, [9] Evaluation des Assessmentprojekts).
Literatur
Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. (2010). Automated, unobtrusive, action-by-action assessment of self-regulation during learning with an intelligent tutoring system. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.517740.
Andrade, H. L. (2010). Summing up and moving forward: Key challenges and future directions for research and development in formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 344–351). New York: Routledge.
Andrade, H. L., & Cizek, G. J. (Hrsg.). (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2. Aufl.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, E. E., & Yun, J. T. (2012). Mathematics curricula and formative assessments: Toward an error-based approach to formative data use in mathematics. Santa Barbara: University of California Educational Evaluation Center.
Bastian, J., Combe, A., & Langer, R. (2003). Feedbackmethoden. Erprobte Konzepte, evaluierte Erfahrungen. Weinheim: Beltz.
Bauch, W. (2010). Kompetenzorientierter Unterricht – Akzente setzen, die Chancen nutzen. Das Marburger Pilotprojekt „Kompetenzorientiert unterrichten“ 2008–2010. Schulpädagogik heute, 1(1), 1–23.
Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, J. W. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Scientific Educational Technology, 18, 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4.
Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1), 2–23.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.
Bergan, J. R., Sladeczek, I. E., Schwarz, R. D., & Smith, A. N. (1991). Effects of a measurement and planning system on kindergartners’ cognitive development and educational programming. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 683–714.
Bernholt, S., Rönnebeck, S., Ropohl, M., Köller, O., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Report on current state of the art in formative and summative assessment in IBE in STM: Report from the FP7 project ASSIST-ME (Deliverable 2.4). Kiel: Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–147.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In R. W. Tyler (Hrsg.), Educational evaluation: new roles, new means: the 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part II) (Bd. 69(2), S. 26–50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Gipps, C. V., Harlen, W., & James, M. (1999). Assessment for learning: beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Brookhart, S. M. (2010). Mixing it up: combining sources of classroom achievement information for formative and summative purpose. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 279–296). New York: Routledge.
Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., & Long, B. A. (2008). Formative assessment that empowers. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 52–57.
Bürgermeister, A., Klimczak, M., Klieme, E., Rakoczy, K., Blum, W., Leiß, D., et al. (2011). Leistungsbeurteilung im Mathematikunterricht – Eine Darstellung des Projekts „Nutzung und Auswirkungen der Kompetenzmessung in mathematischen Lehr-Lernprozessen“. Schulpädagogik – heute, 2(3), 1–18.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245.
Chen, L., & Chen, T.-L. (2012). Use of Twitter for formative evaluation: Reflections on trainer and trainees’ experiences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 49–52.
Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics and challenges. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 3–17). New York: Routledge.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993026.
Cronbach, L. J. (1964). Evaluation for course improvement. In R. W. Heath (Hrsg.), New Curricula (S. 231–248). New York: Harper & Row.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004438.
Decristan, J., Hondrich, A. L., Büttner, G., Hertel, S., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., & Hardy, I. (2015). Impact of additional guidance in science education on primary students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Educational Research, 108, 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/002206712014.899957.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online student response system). The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 6, 1801–1803.
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11.
Espin, C. A., Wayman, M. M., Deno, S. L., McMaster, K. L., & de Rooij, M. (2017). Data-based decision-making: Developing a method for capturing teachers’ understanding of CBM graphs. Learning disabilities, 32(1), 8–21.
Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 76, 83–96.
Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 407–417.
Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2014). Learning progress assessment and goal setting: Effects on reading achievement, reading motivation and reading self-concept. Learning and Instruction, 32, 91–100.
Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement as the emerging alternative: three decades later. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12127.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.
Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.
Grob, R., Beerenwinkel, A., Haselhofer, M., Holmeier, M., Stübi, C., Tsivitanidou, O., & Labudde, P. (2014). Description of the ASSIST-ME assessment methods and competences (Deliverable 4.7). Basel: University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.
Harks, B. (2013). Kompetenzdiagnostik und Rückmeldung – zwei Komponenten formativen Assessments. Frankfurt a. M.: Goethe-Universität. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation.
Harlen, W. (2008). Editor’s introduction. In W. Harlen (Hrsg.), Student Assessment and Testing (S. xix–xlvi). London: SAGE.
Hasselhorn, M., Decristan, J., & Klieme, E. (2018). Individuelle Förderung. In O. Köller, M. Hasselhorn, F. W. Hesse, K. Maaz, J. Schrader, H. Solga, C. K. Spieß, & K. Zimmer (Hrsg.), Das Bildungswesen in Deutschland: Bestand und Potenziale. Bad Heilbrunn: UTB/Klinkhardt.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Helmke, A., & Lenske, G. (2013). Unterrichtsdiagnostik als Voraussetzung für Unterrichtsentwicklung. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 31(2), 214–233.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 140–145.
Higgins, K. M., Harris, N. A., & Kuehn, L. L. (1994). Placing assessment into the hands of young children: a study of student-generated criteria and self-assessment. Educational Assessment, 2, 309–324.
Hill, M., Cowie, B., Gilmore, A., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Preparing assessment-capable teachers: What should preservice teachers know and be able to do? Assessment Matters, 2, 43–64.
Hosenfeld, I., & Zimmer-Müller, M. (2009). Was VERA Lehrern sagen kann. Über Sinn und Interpretation von Vergleichsarbeiten in der Grundschule. Schule im Blickpunkt, 5, 8–9.
Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the data decision mantra: Different conception of data-driven decision making. In P. A. Moss (Hrsg.), Evidence and decision making (S. 105–131). Malden: Blackwell.
Ingenkamp, K. (1985). Lehrbuch der Pädagogischen Diagnostik. Weinheim: Beltz.
James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Hrsg.), Assessment and Learning (S. 47–60). London: SAGE.
James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Professional learning as a condition for assessment for learning. In J. Gardner (Hrsg.), Assessment and Learning (S. 27–25). London: SAGE.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2015). Erratum. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12075.
Klecker, B. M. (2003). The impact of formative feedback on student learning in an online classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 161–165.
Klieme, E., & Warwas, J. (2011). Konzepte der individuellen Förderung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(6), 805–818.
Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., Harks, B., Blum, W., Leiß, D., & Rakoczy, K. (2010). Leistungsbeurteilung und Kompetenzmodellierung im Mathematikunterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56, 64–74.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254.
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.
Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 216, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.61.
Köller, O. (2005). Formative assessment in classrooms: a review of the empirical German literature. In OECD (Hrsg.), Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (S. 265–279). Paris: OECD.
Kultusministerkonferenz (2004). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Beschluss der Kulusminiterkonferenz vom 16.12.2004. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.
Lehmann, R. H., & Seeber, S. (2005). Accelerated Mathematics in grades 4–6. Summary of a quasi-experimental study in Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany. http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/192.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.
Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers’ learning experiences of constructing e‑portfolios online. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 194–200.
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037123.
Maier, U. (2010a). Formative Assessment – Ein erfolgversprechendes Konzept zur Reform von Unterricht und Leistungsmessung? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-010-0124-9.
Maier, U. (2010b). Vergleichsarbeiten im Spannungsfeld zwischen formativer und summativer Leistungsmessung. Die Deutsche Schule, 102(1), 60–69.
Maier, U. (2011). Formative Leistungsdiagnostik in der Sekundarstufe I – Befunde einer quantitativen Lehrerbefragung zu Nutzung und Korrelaten verschiedener Typen formativer Diagnosemethoden in Gymnasien. Empirische Pädagogik, 25(1), 25–46.
Maier, U., Hofmann, F., & Zeitler, S. (2012). Formative Leistungsdiagnostik. Grundlagen und Praxisbeispiele. München: Oldenburg.
Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 75, 85–98.
Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064.
McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12200.
McMillan, J. (2010). The practical implications of educational aims and contexts for formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 41–58). New York: Routledge.
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4.
OECD (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. http://www.oecd.org/publications/Policybriefs. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.
OECD (2008). Assessment for learning: The case for formative assessment learning in the 21st century: Research, innovation and policy. http://www.oecd.org/publications/Policybriefs. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijobs, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknown and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. The science and design of educational assessment. Washington: National Academic Press.
Poggio, A., Poggio, J., & Glasnapp, D. (2007). The utility and impact of online computerized formative and early warning asessments on student performance. Vortrag gehalten auf der Tagung des National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
Preiser, S. (2000). Feedback nach Referaten als hochschuldidaktisches Instrument. In G. Krampen (Hrsg.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation II (S. 187–202). Bonn: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.
Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Leiß, D., & Blum, W. (2017). Formative assessment in mathematics instruction: Theoretical considerations and empirical results of the Co2CA project. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, & E. Klieme (Hrsg.), Competence assessment in education (S. 447–468). Berlin: Springer.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3/4), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652991.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practives and students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163.
Russel, M. (2010). Technology-aided formative assessment and learning: New developments and applications. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 125–138). New York: Routledge.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714.
Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2017). Self-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1049–1066.
Schütze, B., Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Besser, M., & Leiss, D. (2017). Training effects on teachers’ feedback practice: the mediating function of feedback knowledge and the moderating role of self-efficacy. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(3), 475–489.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Hrsg.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (S. 38–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Guest editor’s introduction. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 293–294.
Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347647.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004.
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
Souvignier, E., Förster, N., & Salaschek, M. (2014a). Quop: Ein Ansatz internetbasierter Lernverlaufsdiagnostik mit Testkonzepten für Lesen und Mathematik. In M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider, & U. Trautwein (Hrsg.), Lernverlaufsdiagnostik (S. 239–256). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Souvignier, E., Förster, N., & Schulte, E. (2014b). Wirksamkeit formativen Assessments – Evaluation des Ansatzes der Lernverlaufsdiagnostik. In M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider, & U. Trautwein (Hrsg.), Lernverlaufsdiagnostik (S. 221–238). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Staman, L., Timmermanns, A. C., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). Effects of a data-based decision making intervention on student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55, 58–67.
Stecker, P. M. (2017). Reflections on teachers’ data-based decision making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32, 71–72.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Improve Student Achievement: Review of Research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752.
Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.
Strandberg, M. (2013). Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden. Educational Research, 55(4), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936.
Strathmann, A. M., & Klauer, K. J. (2012). LVD-M 2–4. Lernverlaufsdiagnostik-Mathematik für zweite bis vierte Klassen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Strijbos, J.-W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002.
Topping, K. J. (2010). Peers as a source of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 61–74). New York: Routledge.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/-00461520.2011.611369.
Velan, G. M., Rakesh, K. K., Mark, D., & Wakefield, D. (2002). Web-based self-assessments in pathology with questionmark perception. Pathology, 34, 282–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313020220131372.
Visible Learning Lab (2010). Educator manual. E‑asTTle fitness for national standards. http://e-asttle.tki.org.nz/User-manuals. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.
Vonderwell, S. (1998). Assessing online learning and teaching: Adapting the minute paper. TechTrends, 48, 29–32.
Walter, J. (2010). LDL. Lernfortschrittsdiagnostik Lesen (LDL). Ein curriculumbasiertes Verfahren. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Walter, J. (2013). VSL. Verlaufsdiagnostik sinnerfassenden Lesens. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 18–40). New York: Routledge.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Hrsg.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (S. 53–82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winter, F. (1991). Schüler lernen Selbstbewertung. Ein Weg zur Veränderung der Leistungsbeurteilung und des Lernens. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
Wylie, E. C., Gullickson, A. R., Cummings, K. E., Egelson, P. E., Noakes, L. A., & Norman, K. M. (2012). Improving formative assessment practice to empower student learning. Thousand Oakes: Corwin.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453–467.
Zeuch, N., Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2017). Assessing teachers’ competencies to read and interpret graphs from learning progress assessment. Results from tests and interviews. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32, 61–70.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schütze, B., Souvignier, E. & Hasselhorn, M. Stichwort – Formatives Assessment. Z Erziehungswiss 21, 697–715 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0838-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0838-7