Introduction
Formative assessment is the process with the help of which students and teachers are able to improve the quality of students’ achievements during the education process (Popham, 2008). One of the main purposes of formative assessment is to assess students’ progress in studying, both in formal and informal forms. This allows teachers to use the information for “providing feedback and making decisions about further instructional activities” (McMillan, 2011, p. 6).
In this paper, the article by Dylan Wiliam about the essential features of formative assessment will be analyzed and compared to other investigations conducted. The essential idea offered by Wiliam (2005) is that there are a number of concepts like questioning, feedback, self- and peer-assessment, and the criteria for success which have to be integrated in order to promote the process called the regulation of learning.
Main Body
The chosen field is investigated by a variety of professionals. Brookhart (2008a) paid certain attention to the importance of feedback in formative assessment in case it is done well. In comparison to Wiliam, Brookhart (2008b) defines not only the time and amount of feedback but also its modality because it is very important to “communicate the feedback message in the most appropriate way” (p.16).
Brookhart (2007) is also the only writer who deals with the motivational and cognitive factors of formative assessment. Though students have to follow a number of rules and requirements set, it seems to be effective to observe their personal changes and feelings under the conditions dictated.
Wiliam offers an example how formative assessment may influence the process of education. However, in comparison to Steven and Jan Chappuis (2007), Wiliam failed to evaluate the importance of summative assessment.
Though he admitted that students have to “access their own performance objectively” (Wiliam, 2005, p. 30), it is not enough for the reader to understand why formative assessment is more appropriate for education. The main purpose of such assessment is to limit student’s and school’s level (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2007), thus, formative assessment is the only process that may encourage students and increase their potential.
Wiliam (2005) successfully defines and briefly evaluates crucial components of formative assessment and provides the examples of how feedback or questionnaires have to be implemented in classrooms, even though he omits some aspects of self-evaluation.
Conclusion
In general, the idea of formative assessment has to be developed with time taking into consideration the changes of cultural and social backgrounds. Students should know how they can improve their knowledge and attitude to the educational process, and the information offered in the article by Dylan Wiliam will certainly help to keep the learning process on the right track and think about other strategies which may be used with time.
Reference List
Brookhart, S.M. (2007). Feedback that fits. Educational leadership: Informative assessment, 65(4), 54-59.
Brookhart, S.M. (2008a). Feedback: An overview. In How to give effective feedback to your students (pp. 1-10). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brookhart, S.M. (2008b). Types of feedback and their purposes. In How to give effective feedback to your students (pp. 10-31). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chappuis, S. & Chappuis, J. (2007). The best value in formative assessment. Educational leadership: Informative assessment, 65(4), 14-19.
McMillan, J. H. (2011). Classroom Assessment Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Popham, J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
William, D. (2005). Keeping learning on track: Formative assessment and the regulation of learning. In M. Cupland, J. Anderson, & T. Spencer (Eds.) Making Mathematics Vital: Proceedings of the twentieth biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics teachers. pp. 20-34.