Transcript Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom

Scaling up formative assessment with
teacher learning communities
Dylan Wiliam
AAIA Conference
September 2010
www.dylanwiliam.net
Overview
 Making the case for formative assessment
 Definitional issues
 Scaling up
The argument for change




We need to improve student achievement
This requires improving teacher quality
Improving the quality of entrants takes too long
So we have to make the teachers we have better
Science
 We can change teachers in a range of ways
 Some will benefit students, and some will not.
 Those that do involve changes in teacher practice
 Changing practice requires new kinds of teacher
learning
 And new models of professional development.
Design
Raising achievement matters…
For individuals
• Increased lifetime salary (13% for a degree)
• Improved health (half the number of disabled years)
• Longer life (1.7 years of life per extra year of schooling)
For society
• Lower criminal justice costs
• Lower health-care costs
• Increased economic growth (Hanushek & Wößman, 2010)
o Present value to UK of raising PISA scores by 25 points: £4trn
o Present value of ensuring all students score 400 on PISA: £5trn
Estonia
Korea
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Poland
Slovenia
Czech Republic
France
Finland
Italy2
Portugal
Norway
OECD Average
United Kingdom
Israel
Spain
Sweden
Denmark
Turkey
Belgium
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
Austria1
30
Ireland1
40
United States
Greece
New Zealand
Impact of education on health
Percentage
100
90
80
70
60
50
Below upper secondary education
Upper secondary education
Tertiary education
20
10
0
Proportion of adults reporting good health, by level of education (OECD, 2010)
Which of the following categories of skill is
disappearing from the work-place most rapidly?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Routine manual
Non-routine manual
Routine cognitive
Complex communication
Expert thinking/problem-solving
…but what is learned matters too…
Autor, Levy & Murnane, 2003
…now more than ever…
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
Dropout
$20.00
HS Diploma
Some C ollege
BA/BSc
$15.00
Prof Degree
$10.00
$5.00
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
19
73
$0.00
Source: Economic Policy Institute
In fact low skill jobs are vanishing…
Over the last eight years, the UK economy has
shed 400 no-qualification jobs every day
Beyond Leitch (Patel et al., 2009)
…and recessions accelerate the trend…
Beyond Leitch (Patel et al., 2009)
The world’s leading manufacturers
Country
United States
China
Japan
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Russian Federation
Brazil
Republic of Korea
Manufacturing value 2008 ($bn)
National total ($bn)
1831
1794
1045
767
381
323
306
256
237
231
Per person ($)
5926
1342
8197
9384
6322
5206
4680
1805
1232
4636
Where’s the solution?
 Structure
• Smaller/larger high schools
• K-8 schools/”All-through” schools
 Alignment
• Curriculum reform
• National strategies
 Governance
• Charter schools and private schools
• Specialist schools and academies
 Technology
• Computers
• Interactive white-boards
 Workforce reforms
• Classroom assistants
Government schools
Government dependent private
Government independent private
%
Luxembourg
Japan
Italy
Switzerland
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
Portugal
United States
Netherlands
Slovak Republic
Korea
Ireland
Spain
Canada
Mexico
New Zealand
Germany
OECD average
United Kingdom
0 20 40 60 80 100 -150
-100
-50
Private schools
perform better
0
50
100
Public schools
perform better
% of cohort reaching proficiency in 5 subjects
including English and Mathematics
CVA and raw results in England
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
960
1000
1040
School contextualized value-added (CVA) score
1080
Differences in CVA are often insignificant…
Middle 50%: differences
in CVA not significantly different
from average
(Wilson & Piebalga, 2008)
…are transient…
Future school effects for the 2014 cohort based on
2007 data with 95% confidence intervals
(Leckie & Goldstein, 2009)
…and are small
Proportion of 16-year olds gaining 5 GCSE grades at
grade C or higher
• 7% of the variability in the proportion achieving this is
attributable to the school, so
• 93% of the variability in the proportion achieving this is
nothing to do with the school
 So, if 15 students in a class get 5 A*-C in the average
school:
• 17 students will do so at a “good” school (1sd above mean)
• 13 students will do so at a “bad” school (1sd below mean)
Information for parents
 Choosing schools on the basis of school performance
data (Allen & Burgess, 2010)
• Compared with random choice, the use of information
increases the chance of getting the best school by:
o Best CVA:
33%
o Best % 5A*-C: 92%
o Best capped GCSE points: 104%
 Impact of getting the best school over the average:
• One grade higher in 3 subjects out of 8
• 10% of students will cross a “threshold” such as 5xA*-C
It’s the classroom…
In the UK, variability at the classroom level is at least 4
times that at school level
• It doesn’t matter very much which school you go to
• But it matters very much which classrooms you are in…
It’s not class size
It’s not the between-class grouping strategy
It’s not the within-class grouping strategy
Impact of background on development
(Feinstein, 2003)
Meaningful differences
 Hour-long samples of family talk in 42 US families
 Number of words spoken to children by adults by the
age of 36 months
• In professional families:
35 million
• In other working-class families:20 million
• In families on welfare: 10 million
 Kinds of reinforcements:
positive negative
• professional 500,000 50,000
• working-class 200,000 100,000
• welfare 100,000 200,000
(Hart & Risley, 1995)
… and specifically, it’s the teacher…
Barber & Mourshed, 2007
Teacher quality and student learning
Subject
Correlation
Woodhead
All
0*
Hanushek, Rivkin & Kain (2005)
Reading
>0.10
Hanushek, Rivkin & Kain (2005)
Mathematics
>0.11
Rockoff (2003)
Reading
0.20
Rockoff (2003)
Mathematics
0.25
Teachers make the difference
 The commodification of teachers has received widespread
support:
• From teacher unions (who understandably resist performancerelated pay)
• From politicians (who are happy that the focus is on teacher
supply, rather than teacher quality)
 But has resulted in the pursuit of policies with poor benefit
to cost
 To see how big the difference is, take a group of 50 teachers
• Students taught by the best teacher learn twice as fast as average
• Students taught by the worst teacher learn half as fast average
 And in the classrooms of the best teachers
• Students with behavioral difficulties learn as much as those
without
• Students from disadvantaged backgrounds do as well as those
from advantaged backgrounds
…so we have two choices…
 A classic labour force issue with 2 (non-exclusive)
solutions
• Replace existing teachers with better ones
• Improve the effectiveness of existing teachers
The ‘dark matter’ of teacher quality
 Teachers make a difference
 But what makes the difference in teachers?
Advanced content matter knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge
Further professional qualifications (MA, NBPTS)
Total “explained” difference
<5%
10-15%
<5%
20-25%
Impact on achievement
 If every TeachFirst teacher is as good as the average
Finnish teacher, the net impact on GCSE would be
one-four-hundredth of a grade in each subject.
 If we could replace the least effective 15,000 teachers
with average teachers, the net impact on student
achievement at GCSE would be an increase of onefortieth of a grade in each subject.
 Raising the bar for entry into the profession so that
we no longer recruit the lowest performing 30% of
teachers would increase achievement at GCSE by one
grade—by 2030.
Or make the teachers we have better…
 Improve the effectiveness of existing teachers
• The “love the one you’re with” strategy
• It can be done
o Provided we focus rigorously on the things that matter
o Even when they’re hard to do
A case study in one district
 Cannington
• Urban school district serving ~20,000 students
• Approximately 20% of the population non-white
• No schools under threat of re-constitution, but all under
pressure to improve test scores
 Funding for a project on “better learning through
smarter teaching”
• Focus on mathematics, science and modern foreign
languages (MFL)
• Commitment from principals in November 2007
• Initial workshops in July 2008
Progress of TLCs in Cannington
Maths
Science
MFL
Ash
1 —
1 —
0 —
Cedar
5 ▮
1 ▮
3 ▮▮
Hawthorne
4 ▮▮
10 ▮ ▮
5 ▮▮▮▮
Hazel
7 —
12 —
2 —
Larch
1 ▮▮▮▮
0 ▮
0 ▮
Mallow
6 ▮▮▮
7 ▮
3 ▮▮
3 ▮▮▮
1 ▮▮▮
Poplar
11 ▮
Spruce
7 ▮▮▮▮
8 ▮▮▮
5 ▮▮▮
Willow
2 ▮
5 ▮
2 ▮▮▮▮
Totals
44
47
21
Black nos. show teachers attending launch event; blue bars show progress of TLC
Educational productivity 1996-2008
Source: Office for National Statistics
Pareto analysis
 Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)
• Economist, philosopher, etc., associated with
the 80:20 rule
 Pareto improvement
• A change that can make at least one person
(e.g., a student) better off without making
anyone else (e.g., a teacher) worse off.
 Pareto efficiency/Pareto optimality
• An allocation (e.g., of resources) is Pareto
efficient or Pareto optimal when there are no
more Pareto improvements
Schools are rarely Pareto optimal
 Examples of Pareto improvements
• Less time on marking to spend more time on planning
questions to use in lessons
• Larger classes with reduced teacher contact time
• Larger classes with increased teacher salaries
 Obstacles to Pareto improvements
• The political economy of reform
• In professional settings, it is incredibly hard to stop people
doing valuable things in order to give them time to do even
more valuable things
o e.g., “Are you saying what I am doing is no good?”
o e.g., “I care about my kids”.
 The essence of effective leadership is stopping people
doing good things—to give them time to do better things
Learning power environments
 Key concept:
• Teachers do not create learning
• Learners create learning
 Teaching as engineering learning environments
 Key features:
• Create student engagement (pedagogies of engagement)
• Well-regulated (pedagogies of contingency)
• Develops habits of mind (pedagogies of formation)
Medicine Hat Tigers
 A major junior (ice) hockey team playing in the
Central Division of the Eastern Conference of the
Western Hockey League in Canada
 Players are aged from 15 to 20
• 15 year olds are only allowed to play five games until their
own season has ended
• Each team is allowed only three 20 year olds
• Total roster 25 players
35
Stats on the ‘Medicine Hat Tigers’
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Dates of birth of the
2003 Medicine Hat
Tigers hockey team
8
Why pedagogies of engagement?
 Intelligence is partly inherited
• So what?
 Intelligence is partly environmental
• Environment creates intelligence
• Intelligence creates environment
 Learning environments
• High cognitive demand
• Inclusive
• Obligatory
Motivation: cause or effect?
high
arousal
Flow
anxiety
challenge
control
worry
relaxation
apathy
boredom
low
low
competence
high
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)
Why pedagogies of contingency?
 1993-1998
• Reviewing research on formative assessment
 1998-2003
• Face-to-face implementations with small groups of teachers
• Effect sizes ~0.3 standard deviations (equivalent to a 70%
increase in rate of learning)
 2003-2008
• Attempts to produce faithful implementations at scale
The formative assessment hi-jack…
 Long-cycle
• Span: across units, terms
• Length: four weeks to one year
• Impact: Student monitoring; curriculum alignment
 Medium-cycle
• Span: within and between teaching units
• Length: one to four weeks
• Impact: Improved, student-involved, assessment; teacher
cognition about learning
 Short-cycle
• Span: within and between lessons
• Length:
o
o
day-by-day: 24 to 48 hours
minute-by-minute: 5 seconds to 2 hours
• Impact: classroom practice; student engagement
Definitions of formative assessment
We use the general term assessment to refer to all those activities
undertaken by teachers—and by their students in assessing
themselves—that provide information to be used as feedback to modify
teaching and learning activities. Such assessment becomes formative
assessment when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching to
meet student needs” (Black & Wiliam, 1998 p. 140)
“the process used by teachers and students to recognise and respond to
student learning in order to enhance that learning, during the learning”
(Cowie & Bell, 1999 p. 32)
“assessment carried out during the instructional process for the
purpose of improving teaching or learning” (Shepard et al., 2005 p. 275)
“Formative assessment refers to frequent, interactive
assessments of students’ progress and understanding to identify
learning needs and adjust teaching appropriately” (Looney,
2005, p. 21)
“A formative assessment is a tool that teachers use to measure
student grasp of specific topics and skills they are teaching. It’s a
‘midstream’ tool to identify specific student misconceptions and
mistakes while the material is being taught” (Kahl, 2005 p. 11)
“Assessment for Learning is the process of seeking and interpreting
evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the
learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to
get there” (Broadfoot et al., 2002 pp. 2-3)
Assessment for learning is any assessment for which the first priority in
its design and practice is to serve the purpose of promoting students’
learning. It thus differs from assessment designed primarily to serve the
purposes of accountability, or of ranking, or of certifying competence.
An assessment activity can help learning if it provides information that
teachers and their students can use as feedback in assessing themselves
and one another and in modifying the teaching and learning activities in
which they are engaged. Such assessment becomes “formative
assessment” when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching
work to meet learning needs. (Black et al., 2004 p. 10)
Which of these are formative?
A. LA science adviser using test results to plan
professional development workshops for teachers
B. Teachers doing item-by-item analysis of key stage 2
maths tests to review their Y6 curriculum
C. A school tests students every 10 weeks to predict
which students are “on course” for GCSE Cs
D. Three quarters of the way through a unit test
E. Exit pass question: “What is the difference between
mass and weight?”
F. “Sketch the graph of y equals one over one plus x
squared on your mini-white boards.”
Formative assessment: a new
definition
“An assessment functions formatively to the extent that
evidence about student achievement elicited by the
assessment is interpreted and used to make decisions
about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be
better, or better founded, than the decisions that would
have been taken in the absence of that evidence.”
Formative assessment therefore involves the creation of,
and capitalization upon, moments of contingency (short,
medium and long cycle) in instruction with a view to
regulating learning (proactive, interactive, and
retroactive).” (Wiliam, 2009)
Unpacking assessment for learning
 Key processes
• Establishing where the learners are in their learning
• Establishing where they are going
• Working out how to get there
 Participants
• Teachers
• Peers
• Learners
Aspects of assessment for learning
Teacher
Peer
Learner
Where the learner
is going
Where the learner is
How to get there
Clarify and share
learning intentions
Engineering effective
discussions, tasks and
activities that elicit
evidence of learning
Providing feedback
that moves learners
forward
Understand and
share learning
intentions
Activating students as learning
resources for one another
Understand
learning intentions
Activating students as owners
of their own learning
Five “key strategies”…
 Clarifying, understanding, and sharing learning intentions
• curriculum philosophy
 Engineering effective classroom discussions, tasks and
activities that elicit evidence of learning
• classroom discourse, interactive whole-class teaching
 Providing feedback that moves learners forward
• feedback
 Activating students as learning resources for one another
• collaborative learning, reciprocal teaching, peer-assessment
 Activating students as owners of their own learning
• metacognition, motivation, interest, attribution, self-assessment
(Wiliam & Thompson, 2007)
…and one big idea
 Use evidence about learning to adapt teaching and
learning to meet student needs
Keeping learning on track
 A good teacher
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establishes where the students are in their learning
Identifies the learning destination
Carefully plans a route
Begins the learning journey
Makes regular checks on progress on the way
Makes adjustments to the course as conditions dictate
Supporting change with teacher
learning communities
The Pack
A model for teacher learning
 Content, then process
 Content (what we want teachers to change)
• Evidence
• Ideas (strategies and techniques)
 Process (how to go about change)
•
•
•
•
•
Choice
Flexibility
Small steps
Accountability
Support
Choice
 Belbin inventory (Management teams: why they
succeed or fail)
• Eight team roles (defined as “A tendency to behave,
contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way.”)
o Company worker; Innovator; Shaper; Chairperson; Resource
investigator; Monitor/evaluator; Completer/finisher; Team worker
• Key ideas
o Each role has strengths and allowable weaknesses
o People rarely sustain “out of role” behavior, especially under stress
 Each teacher’s personal approach to teaching is similar
• Some teachers’ weaknesses require immediate attention
• For most, however, students benefit more by developing
teachers’ strengths
Flexibility
 Two opposing factors in any school reform
• Need for flexibility to adapt to local constraints and affordances
o Implies there is appropriate flexibility built into the reform
• Need to maintain fidelity to the theory of action of the reform, to minimise
“lethal mutations”
o So you have to have a clearly articulated theory of action
 Different innovations have different approaches to flexibility
• Some reforms are too loose (e.g., ‘Effective schools’ movement)
• Others are too tight (e.g., Montessori Schools)
 The “tight but loose” formulation:
• … combines an obsessive adherence to central design principles (the “tight”
part) with accommodations to the needs, resources, constraints, and
affordances that occur in any school or district (the “loose” part), but only
where these do not conflict with the theory of action of the intervention.
Strategies and techniques
 Distinction between strategies and techniques
• Strategies define the territory of formative assessment
(no brainers)
• Teachers are responsible for choice of techniques
o Allows for customization/ caters for local context
o Creates ownership
o Shares responsibility
 Key requirements of techniques
•
•
•
•
embodiment of deep cognitive/affective principles
relevance
feasibility
acceptability
Design and intervention
Our design process
cognitive/affective
insights
synergy/
comprehensiveness
set of
components
Teachers’ implementation process
set of
components
synergy/
comprehensiveness
cognitive/affective
insights
Small steps
 According to Berliner (1994), experts
• excel mainly in their own domain.
• often develop automaticity for the repetitive operations that are needed
to accomplish their goals.
• are more sensitive to the task demands and social situation when
solving problems.
• are more opportunistic and flexible in their teaching than novices.
• represent problems in qualitatively different ways than novices.
• have fast and accurate pattern recognition capabilities. Novices cannot
always make sense of what they experience.
• perceive meaningful patterns in the domain in which they are
experienced.
• begin to solve problems slower but bring richer and more personal
sources of information to bear on the problem that they are trying to
solve.
Example: CPR (Klein & Klein, 1981)
 Six video extracts of a person delivering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
• 5 of the video extracts are students
• 1 of the video extracts is an expert
 Videos shown to three groups: students, experts,
instructors
 Success rate in identifying the expert:
• Experts:
• Students:
• Instructors:
90%
50%
30%
Looking at the wrong knowledge…
 The most powerful teacher knowledge is not explicit
• That’s why telling teachers what to do doesn’t work
• What we know is more than we can say
• And that is why most professional development has been
relatively ineffective
 Improving practice involves changing habits, not adding
knowledge
• That’s why it’s hard
o And the hardest bit is not getting new ideas into people’s heads
o It’s getting the old one’s out
• That’s why it takes time
 But it doesn’t happen naturally
• If it did, the most experienced teachers would be the most
productive, and that’s not true (Hanushek, 2005)
We need to create time and space for teachers to reflect on their
practice in a structured way, and to learn from mistakes
(Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999)
“Always make new mistakes”
(Esther Dyson)
“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
(Samuel Beckett, Worstward Ho)
Sensory capacity (Nørretranders, 1998)
Sensory system
Total bandwidth
(in bits/second)
Conscious bandwidth
(in bits/second)
Eyes
10,000,000
40
Ears
100,000
30
Skin
1,000,000
5
Taste
1,000
1
Smell
100,000
1
Hand hygiene in hospitals (Pittet, 2001)
Study
Focus
Compliance rate
Preston, Larson & Stamm (1981)
Open ward
16%
ICU
30%
Albert & Condie (1981)
ICU
28% to 41%
Larson (1983)
All wards
45%
Donowitz (1987)
Pediatric ICU
30%
Graham (1990)
ICU
32%
Dubbert (1990)
ICU
81%
Pettinger & Nettleman (1991)
Surgical ICU
51%
Larson et al. (1992)
Neonatal ICU
29%
Doebbeling et al. (1992)
ICU
40%
Zimakoff et al. (1992)
ICU
40%
Meengs et al. (1994)
ER (Casualty)
32%
Pittet, Mourouga & Perneger (1999)
All wards
48%
ICU
36%
Support
 What is needed from teachers
• A commitment to:
o the continuous improvement of practice
• focus on those things that make a difference to student
outcomes
 What is needed from leaders
• A commitment to:
o creating expectations for the continuous improvement of practice
o ensuring that the the focus stays on those things that make a
difference to student outcomes
o providing the time, space, dispensation and support for innovation
o supporting risk-taking
A case study in risk
 Transposition of the great arteries (TGA)
• A rare, but extremely serious, congenital condition in newborn
babies (~25 per 100,000 live births) in which
o the aorta emerges from the right ventricle and so receives oxygen-poor
blood, which is carried back to the body without receiving more oxygen
o the pulmonary artery emerges from the left ventricle and so receives the
oxygen-rich blood, which is carried back to the lungs
• Traditional treatment: the ‘Senning’ procedure which involves:
o the creation of a ‘tunnel’ between the ventricles, and
o the insertion of a ‘baffle’ to divert oxygen-rich blood from the left
ventricle (where it shouldn’t be) to the right ventricle (where it should)
• Prognosis
o Early death rate (first 30 days): 12%
o Life expectancy: 46.6 years
The introduction of the ‘switch’ procedure
Senning
Early death rate
Senning
12%
Transitional
25%
Transitional
Switch
Bull, et al (2000). BMJ, 320, 1168-1173.
Impact on life expectancy
Life expectancy:
Senning: 46.6 years
Switch:
62.6 years
Making a commitment…
 Action planning
•
•
•
•
Forces teachers to make their ideas concrete and creates a record
Makes the teacher accountable for doing what they promised
Requires each teacher to focus on a small number of changes
Requires the teacher to identify what they will give up or reduce
 A good action plan
•
•
•
•
•
Does not try to change everything at once
Spells out specific changes in teaching practice
Relates to the five “key strategies” of AfL
Is achievable within a reasonable period of time
Identifies something that the teacher will no longer do or will do
less of
…and being held to it
I think specifically what was helpful was the ridiculous NCR forms. I thought
that was the dumbest thing, but I’m sitting with my friends and on the NCR
form I write down what I am going to do next month.
Well, it turns out to be a sort of “I’m telling my friends I’m going to do this”
and I really actually did it and it was because of that. It was because I wrote it
down
I was surprised at how strong an incentive that was to do actually do
something different … that idea of writing down what you are going to do and
then because when they come by the next month you better take out that
piece of paper and say “Did I do that?” … Just the idea of sitting in a group,
working out something, and making a commitment… I was impressed about
how that actually made me do stuff. (Tim, Spruce Central High School)
Supporting change with teacher learning
communities
Designing teacher learning at scale
 A single model for the whole school
• Scalable
• Enables a ‘single conversation’ with students
 A model that honors the specificities of subject and
age-range
 A model that acknowledges the realities
• Affordable
• Feasible
Teacher learning communities
 Plan that the TLC will run for two years
 Identify 10 to 12 interested colleagues
• Composition
o Similar assignments (e.g. early years, math/sci)
o Mixed-subject/mixed-phase
o Hybrid
 Secure institutional support for:
• Monthly meetings (75 - 120 minutes each, inside or outside
school time)
• Time between meetings (2 hrs per month in school time)
o Collaborative planning
o Peer observation
• Any necessary waivers from school policies
A ‘signature pedagogy’ for teacher learning
 Every monthly TLC meeting should follows the same
structure and sequence of activities
•
•
•
•
Activity 1: Introduction (5 minutes)
Activity 2: Starter activity (5 minutes)
Activity 3: Feedback (25-50 minutes)
Activity 4: New learning about formative assessment (20-40
minutes)
• Activity 5: Personal action planning (15 minutes)
• Activity 6: Review of learning (5 minutes)
Every TLC needs a leader
 The job of the TLC leader(s)
• To remind participants about the next meeting
• To book a room for the meeting
• To ensure that all necessary resources (including
refreshments!) are available at meetings
• To ensure that the agenda is followed
• To maintain a collegial and supportive environment
 But most important of all…
• not to be the formative assessment “expert”
Peer observation
 Run to the agenda of the observed, not the observer
• Observed teacher specifies focus of observation
o e.g., teacher wants to increase wait-time
• Observed teacher specifies what counts as evidence
o provides observer with a stop-watch to log wait-times
• Observed teacher owns any notes made during the
observation
Impact at Edmonton County School
The story so far…
 1993-1998
• Review of research on formative assessment
 1998-2003
• Face-to-face implementations with small groups of teachers
• Effect sizes ~0.3 standard deviations (equivalent to a 70%
increase in rate of learning)
 2003-2008
• Attempts to produce faithful implementations at scale
 2008-2013
• Creating the conditions for implementations at scale
Comments?
Questions?