Promoting Student Ownership of Learning Through High-Impact Formative Assessment Practices
Main Article Content
Abstract
The most important instructional decisions, those with the greatest influence on student success, are made by learners themselves (Stiggins, 2008). Formative assessment, done well, contributes to student ownership of learning more than any other classroom-based instructional or assessment practice (Bloom, 1984). It is an economical, highly effective, and uniquely flexible method that can improve learning (Leahy, Lyon, Thompson, & Wiliam, 2005). Simply put, the teacher’s purpose in formative assessment is to give students the means, motive, and opportunity to take control of their own learning. And, through their involvement in formative assessment, students develop self-efficacy for specific learning and, more generally, they develop skills that contribute to increased self-regulation and self-assessment of learning. In order for students to be meaningfully involved in formative assessment, they must be guided by teachers who hold the beliefs, knowledge and skills that engender active student engagement in the learning process. This paper highlights interim findings from a five-year professional development initiative involving the Armstrong School District, a large, rural school district in Western Pennsylvania, and the Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning at the Duquesne University School of Education. The initiative rests on the fusion of formative assessment, teacher-student communication, and student ownership of learning. The professional development program employs online modules, peer study groups, classroom walkthroughs, and teacher inquiry into their classroom practices and the beliefs that drive them. The program explores seven formative assessment components: 1) Identifying and Clearly Communicating Learning Targets, .) Feedback that Feeds Forward, 3) Student Goal-Setting, 4) Student Self- Assessment, 6) Strategic Questioning, and 7) Formative Discourse. All components are linked to specific aspects of student motivation: intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, goal-setting, and student attributions. The paper describes the impacts of formative assessment on student ownership of learning, student achievement, motivation, and active engagement as well as provides insights into teachers’ experiences with student involvement. Findings show that not only have the teachers come to value and promote student ownership of learning using high impact formative assessment strategies, but that their efforts have resulted in high student engagement in learning and increased student achievement.
Downloads
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
Bailey, A. L., & Drummond, K. V. (2006). Who is at risk and why? Teachers' reasons for concern and their understanding and assessment of early literacy. Educational Assessment, 11, 149-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_2
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_2
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213-238.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Bloom, B. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as on-to-one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4-17.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1175554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1175554
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Expanding views about formative classroom assessment: A review of the literature. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp.43-62). New York: Teachers College Press.
Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., & Long, B. A. (2007). A cross-case analysis of teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices in six Title I reading classrooms. CASTL Technical Report Series No. 1-07. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from www.castl.duq.edu/Castl_TechReports.htm
Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., & Long, B. A. (2008). Teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices among Title I reading teachers and literacy coaches. CASTL Technical Report Series No. 2-08. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from www.castl.duq.edu/Castl_TechReports.htm
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004438 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004438
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.
Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children's achievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 207-229.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_2
Meisels, S., Atkins-Burnett, S., Xue, Y., & Bickel, D. D. (2003). Creating a system of accountability: The impact of instructional assessment on elementary children's achievement scores. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(9). Retrieved June 7, 2009, from epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n9/
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n9.2003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n9.2003
Moss, C. M. (2001). A resource guide for the teacher scholar. Pittsburgh, PA: School of Education, Duquesne University. Retrieved Jun 7, 2009, from www.castl.duq.edu/res_guide/
Moss, C. M. (2002). Professional learning on the cyber sea: What is the point of contact? In R. all (Ed.), Special topic issue: World Wide Web and education, Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior,1(3), 41-50.
https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100316210 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100316210
Moss, C. M., & Goldbach, D. (2000). Designing a learning environment that learns: Design decisions for teaching as intentional learning. CASTL Technical Report Series No. 1- 00. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from www.castl.duq.edu/Castl_TechReports.htm
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22, 155-175.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4
Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001, January). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1),1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Rodriguez, M. C. (2004). The role of classroom assessment in student performance on TIMMS. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1701_1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1701_1
Sadler, D. R. (1983). Evaluation and the improvement of academic learning. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 60-79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1983.11778152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1983.11778152
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Stiggins, R.J. (2008). Student-involved assessment FOR learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.
University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2008y). DIBELS benchmark goals: Three assessment periods per year. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/ benchmarkgoals.pdf