Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing for Formative Assessment: A Toolkit for Teachers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Classroom Assessment in Mathematics

Part of the book series: ICME-13 Monographs ((ICME13Mo))

Abstract

This paper describes the outcomes of the three-year design research project: Formative Assessment in Science and Mathematics Education (FaSMEd) (http://www.fasmed.eu). Its goals: to develop a toolkit for teachers, and to research the use of technology in formative assessment in mathematics and science. Countries in the partnership included the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, and South Africa. The project used an iterative, collaborative, process-focused approach. Case studies drew on a wide variety of researcher and teacher obtained evidence. The paper draws on analysis of the case studies and country reports to provide policy recommendations and suggestions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.sails-project.eu/.

  2. 2.

    http://www.mascil-project.eu/.

  3. 3.

    http://www.primas-project.eu/.

  4. 4.

    http://assistme.ku.dk/.

  5. 5.

    http://www.fasmed.eu/.

  6. 6.

    FP7 is the short name for the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. This is the European Union’s main instrument for funding research in Europe and it ran from 2007–2013. FP7 was designed to respond to Europe’s employment needs, competitiveness, and quality of life.

  7. 7.

    Effect size is a simple way of quantifying the difference between two groups that has many advantages over the use of tests of statistical significance alone. Effect size emphasises the size of the difference rather than confounding this with sample size.

  8. 8.

    https://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/positionpapers/The+use+of+technology+in+FA+to+raise+achievement_Revision+UNITO-FINAL.pdf.

  9. 9.

    https://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/positionpapers/.

  10. 10.

    https://microsites.ncl.ac.uk/fasmedtoolkit/theory-for-fa/glossary/.

  11. 11.

    https://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/positionpapers/Cognitive+conflict_Nottingham_ude_revised.pdf.

  12. 12.

    See our dissemination activities at: https://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/disseminationactivity/.

  13. 13.

    http://www.airsquirrels.com/reflector/.

  14. 14.

    http://map.mathshell.org/lessons.php?unit=6300&collection=8.

  15. 15.

    https://www.schoology.com/.

  16. 16.

    https://getkahoot.com/.

  17. 17.

    https://www.jelevelamain.fr/en/.

  18. 18.

    https://sourceforge.net/projects/fasmed-self-assessment-tool/ (TI-Nspire© software needed).

  19. 19.

    https://app.dwo.nl/dae/ (use Firefox browser).

  20. 20.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/D2%201.pdf.

  21. 21.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/D2%202.pdf.

  22. 22.

    http://www.fasmed.eu/.

  23. 23.

    https://microsites.ncl.ac.uk/fasmedtoolkit/professional-development/modules-new/.

  24. 24.

    https://microsites.ncl.ac.uk/fasmedtoolkit/professional-development/.

  25. 25.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/positionpapers/TeacherProfessionalLearningPositionPaperRevised_Final.pdf.

  26. 26.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/.

  27. 27.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/Deliverable%20D5.2%20Cross%20Comparative%20study%20of%20case%20studies.pdf.

  28. 28.

    https://microsites.ncl.ac.uk/fasmedtoolkit/professional-development/approaches/.

  29. 29.

    https://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/Deliverable%20D5.2%20Cross%20Comparative%20study%20of%20case%20studies.pdf.

  30. 30.

    https://www.socrative.com/.

  31. 31.

    http://popplet.com/.

  32. 32.

    https://classflow.com/.

  33. 33.

    http://www.fasmed.eu/.

  34. 34.

    http://www.sails-project.eu/.

  35. 35.

    http://www.mascil-project.eu/.

  36. 36.

    http://www.primas-project.eu/.

  37. 37.

    http://assistme.ku.dk/.

  38. 38.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/.

  39. 39.

    http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/deliverables/.

  40. 40.

    http://www.sails-project.eu/.

  41. 41.

    http://www.mascil-project.eu/.

  42. 42.

    http://www.primas-project.eu/.

  43. 43.

    http://assistme.ku.dk/.

References

  • Abrahamson, L., Davidian, A., & Lippai, A. (2002). Wireless calculator networks—Why they work, where they came from, and where they’re going. Paper presented at the 13th Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, Atlanta, Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, A. (1987). Better mathematics. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, A., & Williams, H. (1991). Raising achievement in mathematics project. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ares, N. (2008). Cultural practices in networked classroom learning environments. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1996). Inside the black box. London, England: King’s College School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experience of ability grouping—Disaffection, polarization and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 631–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusi, A., Morselli, F., & Sabena, C. (this volume). The use of digital technologies to enhance formative assessment processes. In D. R. Thompson, M. Burton, A. Cusi, & D. Wright (Eds.), ICME 13 Monographs Classroom assessment in mathematics: Perspectives from around the globe, (pp. 77–92). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Leonard, W. J. (2000). ASK-IT/A2L: Assessing student knowledge with instructional technology (technical report No. UMPERG-2000-09). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. London, England: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irving, K. I. (2006). The impact of educational technology on student achievement: Assessment of and for learning. Science Educator, 15(1), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looney, J. (2010). Making it happen: Formative assessment and educational technologies. Thinking Deeper Research Paper n.1, Part 3. Promethean Education Strategy Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side. How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., & Patton, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer, 40(9), 42–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 1436–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis research. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (2002). Learning intelligence: Cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirley, M., Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., Pape, S. J., & Owens, D. (2011). The practicality of implementing connected classroom technology in secondary mathematics and science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 459–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34(6), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 839–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M. (2014). Design research in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 148–152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M., & Foster, C. (this volume). Formative assessment lessons. In D. R. Thompson, M. Burton, A. Cusi, & D. Wright (Eds.), ICME 13 Monographs Classroom assessment in mathematics: Perspectives from around the globe, (pp. 11–24). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A., De Geest, E., & Prestage, S. (2003). Deep progress in mathematics. Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning: Why, what and how. In Excellence in assessment: Assessment for learning (pp. 2–16). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Assessment Network. Retrieved June 19, 2017 from http://www.assessnet.org.uk/e-learning/file.php/1/Resources/Excellence_in_Assessment/Excellence_in_Assessment_-_Issue_1.pdf.

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    David Wright, Jill Clark & Lucy Tiplady

Authors
  1. David Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jill Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucy Tiplady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Wright .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching and Learning, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

    Denisse R. Thompson

  2. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

    Megan Burton

  3. University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Annalisa Cusi

  4. Research Center for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

    David Wright

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wright, D., Clark, J., Tiplady, L. (2018). Designing for Formative Assessment: A Toolkit for Teachers. In: Thompson, D., Burton, M., Cusi, A., Wright, D. (eds) Classroom Assessment in Mathematics. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73748-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73748-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73747-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73748-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation