Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Informal Assessment

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_390-1
How to cite

Assessment is practiced everyday in all social interactions. It is the way we naturally, even automatically, assess each other as we socialize in a variety of situations everyday: “Whenever we take the time to look and notice, we find naturally occurring, unremarkable, and unremarked assessment activities that nevertheless are fundamental in making human collaboration possible…[]…in-a-glance, on-the-fly mutual assessments underlie all of human sociality, and in fact, the sociality of all social species” (Jordan and Putz 2004, p. 348). This on-the-fly assessment has come to be known as interactive (Bell and Cowie 2001) or informal assessment (Shavelson et al. 2003) in education, or inherent assessment in noneducation organizations (Jordan and Putz 2004). These terms have been used as differentiators from those at the other end of the continuum, i.e., more planned or formal assessment as applied in education (Bell and Cowie 2001; Shavelson et al. 2003; Wiliam and Black 1996) and documentary...

Keywords

Formative Assessment Learning Goal Classroom Context Informal Assessment Assessment Opportunity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., & Smith, F. L. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4, 37–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobs, V., Lamb, L., & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.Google Scholar
  10. Jordan, B., & Putz, P. (2004). Assessment as practice: Notes on measures, tests, and targets. Human Organization, 63, 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18–24.Google Scholar
  12. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Special Issue in Assessment for Learning Studies of Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Kroog, H., & Sands, D. (2015). Teachers’ judgments on-the-fly: Teachers’ response patterns to students’ responses in the context of informal formative assessment. Paper to be presented at the Symposium “From teachers’ assessment practices to shared professional judgment cultures” at the European Association for Research on Instruction and Learning. Limassol.Google Scholar
  17. Shavelson, R. J., Black, P. J., Wiliam, D., & Coffey, J. (2003). On linking formative and summative functions in the design of large-scale assessment systems (Internal manuscript, stanford education assessment laboratory). Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  18. Stobart, G. (2014). The expert learner. Challenging the myth of ability. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Shavelson, R. J., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., Young, D. B., et al. (2008). On the role and impact of formative assessment on science inquiry teaching and learning. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning (pp. 21–36). Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  20. William, D. (2011). Formative embedded assessments. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meaning and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA