Where are we now? Learning progressions and formative assessment

ABSTRACT

In this commentary, I consider the three empirical studies in this special issue based on two main aspects: (a) the nature of the learning progressions and (b) what formative assessment practice(s) were investigated. Specifically, I describe differences among the learning progressions in terms of scope and grain size. I also identify three constellations of formative assessment practices and examine their investigation in the three studies. Finally, I consider implications of differences in the learning progressions for how teachers might use them for various formative assessment practices. Findings from the studies suggest that specific types of learning progressions, partnered with other supports like curricula and professional development, may encourage teachers to move from a stance of “diagnose and fix” toward a learning progression stance of “identify and use.”

Notes

¹ Most of the past research done in this area is by authors in this special issue.

² NGSS have three dimensions: (a) disciplinary core ideas, (b) science and engineering practices, and (c) crosscutting concepts, which are integrated into each performance expection (i.e., standard). However, there are separate LPs for each of the dimensions (see NGSS Appendices E, F, G).

³ Third International Conference on Assessment for Learning, held in Dunedin, New Zealand in March 2009, was an invitational conference attended by 31 assessment experts from the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United Kingdom.

⁴ Sadler (1989) delineated three necessary components of feedback: (a) the standard that is to be achieved, (b) the actual level of performance, and (c) how to go about closing the gap. Building on this, Hattie and Timperley (2007) suggested that “effective feedback must answer three major questions asked by a teacher and/or a student: Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?)” (p. 86). Also see Wiliam and Thompson (2007).