Classroom Assessment to Support Teaching and Learning

Published date01 May 2019
Date01 May 2019
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843818
Subject MatterToward the Future: Theories of Knowing and Implications for Assessment
ANNALS, AAPSS, 683, May 2019 183
DOI: 10.1177/0002716219843818
Classroom
Assessment to
Support
Teaching and
Learning
By
LORRIE A. SHEPARD
843818ANN The Annals of the American AcademyClassroom Assessment to Support Teaching and Learning
research-article2019
Classroom assessment includes both formative assess-
ment, used to adapt instruction and help students to
improve, and summative assessment, used to assign
grades. These two forms of assessment must be coher-
ently linked through a well-articulated model of learn-
ing. Sociocultural theory is an encompassing grand
theory that integrates motivation and cognitive devel-
opment, and it enables the design of equitable learning
environments. Learning progressions are examples of
fine-grained models of learning, representing goals,
intermediate stages, and instructional means for reach-
ing those goals. A model for creating a productive
classroom learning culture is proposed. Rather than
seeking coherence with standardized tests, which
undermines the learning orientation of formative
assessment, I propose seeking coherence with ambi-
tious teaching practices. The proposed model also
offers ways to minimize the negative effects of grading
on learning. Support for teachers to learn these new
assessment practices is most likely to be successful in
the context of professional development for new cur-
riculum and standards.
Keywords: formative assessment; summative assess-
ment; feedback; grading; learning theory;
equity
The use of assessment in classrooms to sup-
port teaching and learning is a fundamen-
tally different undertaking from large-scale
testing designed to monitor trends, hold schools
accountable, evaluate teachers and programs,
or inform selection and placement decisions.
Lorrie A. Shepard is a university distinguished profes-
sor in the School of Education at the University of
Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on psychomet-
rics and the use and misuse of tests in education settings.
Most cited are her contributions to validity theory,
standard setting, bias detection, the effects of high-
stakes accountability testing, and the integration of
learning theory with classroom formative assessment.
NOTE: Special thanks to Michael Feuer and Jim
Pellegrino for their thoughtful comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
Correspondence: Lorrie.Shepard@Colorado.edu
184 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
(These other purposes of testing motivate the organization of this volume.)
Classroom assessment includes both formative assessment used to adapt instruc-
tion and help students improve and summative assessment used to assign grades
or otherwise certify student achievement. Often formative strategies for eliciting
and responding to student thinking may be informal and can be engaged in con-
texts of real-world problem solving rather than requiring test-like formats.
Because classroom assessment is intended to aid directly in the learning process
(not merely to measure learning outcomes), it necessarily must be closely tied to
instructional practices and to relevant research: on learning (in subjects such as
mathematics, science, and literacy); on motivation, feedback, and self-regulation;
on cognitive and sociocultural aspects of learning and identity; on curriculum; on
adaptive teaching and teacher-learning; and on theories of formative assessment
and grading.
Historically, the measurement research literature did not distinguish between
the kinds of test formats needed for standardized tests and those that teachers
would need for classroom quizzes and tests (Shepard 2006). Because of beliefs
about learning a century ago, equating learning goals with test formats did not
seem unreasonable (Shepard 2000). (For historical context see, e.g., Vinovskis,
this volume; Reese 1999; for an earlier review, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment 1992). This context for classrooms began to change in the 1990s, how-
ever, due to two major trends: (1) increased accountability pressure attached to
high-stakes tests leading to outcries about associated distortions of curriculum and
instruction, and (2) changing conceptions of subject-matter expertise and learning
processes following from the rise of cognitive psychology and constructivist
approaches to teaching and learning. Although beyond the scope of this article, it
is important to note that assessment reformers in the United States responded to
these challenges by developing new subject matter standards and new perfor-
mance assessments to represent and enact those standards. In the United Kingdom
and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries, assessment reforms focused on formative assessment as a remedy more
likely to raise student achievement (Black and Wiliam 1998a, 1998b; OECD
2005). The research literatures resulting from both of these strands of work make
important contributions to the work that I report here.
In this article, I consider how research on learning and motivation can be
brought together with research on grading so that they will not so often be at
cross-purposes. I propose a model for classroom assessment based on sociocultural
theory. Rather than seeking alignment with standardized tests, which undermines
classroom cultural practices that support deep learning, I draw the connections
between productive formative assessment practices and ambitious, high-leverage
teaching practices. My main concern is to help policy-makers avoid the mistake
of thinking that tests designed primarily to serve purposes of monitoring,
accountability, or selection can also be assumed to be useful to teachers making
decisions about their students.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT