Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis and a Call for Research

An effect size of about .70 (or .40–.70) is often claimed for the efficacy of formative assessment, but is not supported by the existing research base. More than 300 studies that appeared to address the efficacy of formative assessment in grades K-12 were reviewed. Many of the studies had severely flawed research designs yielding uninterpretable results. Only 13 of the studies provided sufficient information to calculate relevant effect sizes. A total of 42 independent effect sizes were available. The median observed effect size was .25. Using a random effects model, a weighted mean effect size of .20 was calculated. Moderator analyses suggested that formative assessment might be more effective in English language arts (ELA) than in mathematics or science, with estimated effect sizes of .32, .17, and .09, respectively. Two types of implementation of formative assessment, one based on professional development and the other on the use of computer-based formative systems, appeared to be more effective than other approaches, yielding mean effect size of .30 and .28, respectively. Given the wide use and potential efficacy of good formative assessment practices, the paucity of the current research base is problematic. A call for more high-quality studies is issued.

[1]  A. Kluger,et al.  Feedback Interventions , 1998 .

[2]  J. Hattie,et al.  The Power of Feedback , 2007 .

[3]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[4]  A. Kluger,et al.  The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. , 1996 .

[5]  Vicki L. Schmitt,et al.  Coming to Terms With Classroom Assessment , 2007 .

[6]  Melissa King.  The effects of formative assessment on student self-regulation, motivational beliefs, and achievement in elementary science , 2003 .

[7]  Miki K. Tomita,et al.  On the Impact of Formative Assessment on Student Motivation, Achievement, and Conceptual Change , 2008 .

[8]  Carl W. Swartz,et al.  Goals and Progress Feedback: Effects on Self-Efficacy and Writing Achievement , 1993 .

[9]  Erin Marie Furtak,et al.  Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry , 2007 .

[10]  Lorrie A. Shepard,et al.  Commentary: Evaluating the Validity of Formative and Interim Assessment , 2009 .

[11]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of An On-Line Formative Assessment and Tutoring System , 2010 .

[12]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Thomas Buchanan,et al.  The efficacy of a World-Wide Web mediated formative assessment , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[14]  Re-examining repeated testing and teacher effects in a remedial mathematics course. , 1992, The British journal of educational psychology.

[15]  Connie M. Moss,et al.  Teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices in remedial reading classrooms , 2010 .

[16]  Karee E. Dunn,et al.  A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education , 2009 .

[17]  M. Boulet,et al.  Formative Evaluation Effects on Learning Music , 1990 .

[18]  Sherman Dorn.  The Political Dilemmas of Formative Assessment , 2010 .

[19]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis , 1986, Exceptional children.

[20]  Stuart S. Yeh.  Understanding and addressing the achievement gap through individualized instruction and formative assessment , 2010 .

[21]  P. Black,et al.  Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement , 2004 .