Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teachers Formative Assessment Use To Check For Understanding and
Teachers Formative Assessment Use To Check For Understanding and
ScholarWorks
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies
Collection
2019
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
Walden University
College of Education
Bobbi Jo Kenyon
Review Committee
Dr. Susan Koyzis, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Billie Andersson, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Mary Howe, University Reviewer, Education Faculty
Walden University
2019
Abstract
by
Bobbi Jo Kenyon
Doctor of Education
Walden University
February 2019
Abstract
School leaders at an urban high school in the U.S. Midwest encouraged teachers to use
formative assessment to help students meet learning goals; however, several years later,
formative assessment practices, leaders could not establish needed supports for its
consistent use in the classrooms. The purpose of this bounded qualitative case study was
to examine teachers’ formative assessment use to check for student understanding and to
adjust instruction. Black and Wiliam’s formative assessment theory formed the
formative assessment and usage of formative assessment for instruction. Ten state
certified high school teachers, who had at least a bachelor’s degree, passed basic skills
and subject area examinations, and taught within their majors or minors, were
purposefully selected to provide data. Data were gathered from observations, interviews,
and teacher logs and were analyzed inductively using open and axial coding strategies.
Results showed teachers collected and used formative assessment to modify instruction
they lacked the knowledge, skills, and strategies to implement formative assessment to
help all students meet learning goals. Based on the findings, 3 professional development
(PD) sessions were created to help school leaders provide support for teachers’ consistent
and skills using formative assessment, and, ultimately, to meet student learning goals.
Teachers’ Formative Assessment Use to Check for Understanding
by
Bobbi Jo Kenyon
Doctor of Education
Walden University
February 2019
Dedication
followed. Witnessing his passion for science and teaching inspired me from an early age.
Collecting rocks and insects, gazing through a telescope, caring for animals, naming tree
species, dissecting specimens after school, talking about natural wonders, and watching
Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and Marty Stouffer’s Wild America—they all fueled my love for
science. Setting up labs, visiting the classroom, grading lab reports, watching late-night
lesson planning, listening to countless teaching stories, and hearing the appreciation of
former students—they all fueled my love for teaching. I have been so blessed that my
father’s passion was also my passion and that we could share our love for science and
I would also like to dedicate this project study to my mother. From teaching me
at my little green desk, such as all the bones of the body at age five, to the countless
hours quizzing me for tests as we sat on her bed—she taught me to work hard and to love
learning. More importantly, she instilled in me the drive to do my best. She hung two
signs prominently in our house: “Anything worth doing at all, is worth doing well” from
Hunter Thompson and “If you think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re absolutely
right” by Henry Ford. Those simple quotes had a profound effect on my life. She taught
me that anything I put my mind to, with my best effort, I could achieve. That sentiment
has brought me much accomplishments and fulfillment in my life. Now it has resulted in
earning my doctoral degree. I have also been blessed that you taught me character is the
I would like to first acknowledge my significant other, Lance, who has given me
Michigan Teacher of the Year, and my countless hours of doctoral work. You always
remind me to believe in myself when I face challenges and take on new roles. Having
you by my side during these journeys has made all the difference. I also want to
acknowledge my sister Sara Jo's constant love and support. Despite the distance, you
always stay involved in my life, encouraging me and celebrating with me along the way.
I would like to thank several other people who have helped me reach this point in
my academic career. My committee chair, Dr. Susan Koyzis, who has helped me grow as
grateful for all the time and support you have dedicated as I completed this project study.
Thank you to Dr. Billie Andersson and Dr. Howe for your support and feedback and to
my Walden University professors for their focus on academic excellence and dedication
to positive social change. Thank you also to my former principal, R. Lewis, who
opportunities in life, giving me the courage to follow those opportunities, and walking
Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Background ....................................................................................................................2
Rationale ........................................................................................................................4
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................11
Framework ............................................................................................................ 19
Implications..................................................................................................................57
Summary ......................................................................................................................59
i
Section 2: The Methodology..............................................................................................61
Participants ...................................................................................................................65
Interviews .............................................................................................................. 75
Logs ................................................................................................................... 78
Coding ................................................................................................................... 84
Introduction ................................................................................................................138
Rationale ....................................................................................................................141
Summary ....................................................................................................................174
Project Description.....................................................................................................176
Introduction ................................................................................................................209
Scholarship .................................................................................................................214
Conclusion .................................................................................................................229
References ........................................................................................................................231
v
List of Tables
vi
1
Section 1: The Problem
Introduction
since its introduction to the educational field through the research of Black and Wiliam
(1998a). The main benefit of formative assessment is that its consistent use has been
current understanding so that teachers can help students reach intended learning goals
(Duckor, 2014; Tomlinson, 2014). In fact, Wiliam (2013) stated that formative
assessment is "one of the most powerful ways of improving student achievement” (p. 15).
Formative assessment and student achievement are related because the former can
uncover what students do not understand during the learning process (Fisher & Frey,
2014a). Teachers can use information gathered from formative assessment tasks to
effective teachers and urban school districts with high student achievement (Johnson,
Uline, & Perez, 2013), and it has been shown to be particularly beneficial for low
achievers (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Hanover Research, 2014). However, studies have
shown that most teachers do not use this research-based practice regularly to check for
student understanding of concepts (Wylie & Lyon, 2015) and, equally crucial, do not use
the results to modify their instruction (Trumbull & Lash, 2013). If teachers do not
consistently check and address student understanding, then students may not meet
I conducted this study at Hammond High School (pseudonym), one of three high
schools located in a large urban district in the northern Midwest United States. The
school consisted of a population of around 650 students who attended Grades 9 through
12. Of the students Hammond served, 73% were African-American, 14% were Hispanic,
and 8% were White; overall, 80% of the students were classified as economically
curricular concepts, as measured by not meeting learning goals derived from state and
issues at this school. During the 2015-2016 school year, 40% of students failed at least
one class; of these students, 35% failed two or more classes, and 29% failed three or
more classes. According to the school data specialist, this resulted in 138 students in the
ninth through eleventh grades not earning enough credits to progress to the next grade
some of the lowest in the state. The state standardized test, taken in 11th grade in all core
subjects, showed students with a 9.8% proficiency compared to the state average of
32.6%. Consequently, graduation rates suffered, with only 56.2% of students graduating
in 4 years.
The student achievement data for previous school years were similar to the 2015-
2016 data. Due to consistently low student achievement levels and students not meeting
state learning goals, Hammond was placed in the bottom 5% of the state in the top-to-
practices that they wanted to encourage teachers to use in their classrooms to help
students meet learning goals and to positively influence student achievement. According
to the school data specialist, school leaders chose formative assessment as one of the
instructional practices to implement because research in the larger educational setting has
shown that teachers’ use of formative assessment in the classroom can positively
influence student achievement (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Baird, Hopfenbeck, Newton,
Stobart, & Steen-Utheim, 2014; Cornelius, 2014; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012; Hattie, 2012,
Hudesman et al., 2013; Madison-Harris & Muoneke, 2012; Yin et al., 2013).
issues at Hammond, school leaders have encouraged teachers for the past several years to
use formative assessment to confirm that students understood the posted learning targets
school reported that there was a lack of consistent use of this instructional practice by
students could meet learning goals. Thus, a gap in practice existed between what
achievement and the current teacher practices regarding formative assessment use at the
school. To rectify the gap between what literature has shown to be an effective way to
teachers used formative assessment in their classrooms. Only then could school leaders
establish the supports needed to promote the consistent use of formative assessment in
the locality.
Rationale
Leaders at Hammond High School were concerned about the lack of consistent
use of formative assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction.
remained low. The local data showing low student achievement, along with literature
among administrators that teachers’ inconsistent use of formative assessment to check for
understanding may have played a role in students not meeting state and district learning
goals, which, consequently, may contribute to the school's continued low student
achievement levels. Another instructional leader mentioned that from periodic classroom
observations conducted throughout the year, there was “a noticeable variation between
formative assessment use among teachers at our school.” School leaders also questioned
teacher adeptness at using formative assessment feedback from students to adjust their
instruction to help students meet learning goals. The former school data specialist stated
that leaders did not understand how teachers used information from formative assessment
5
to adjust their instruction so that they could address student misunderstandings.
Classroom and school achievement data suggested that reteaching based on formative
assessment results was inconsistent as well. Without clear information about the use of
and adjusting instruction—school leaders could not make informed decisions regarding
successfully meet learning goals, school leaders must have information about teacher
formative assessment practices in their buildings (Sanzo, Myran, & Caggiano, 2015).
Stanley and Alig (2014) determined that if leaders were informed and supportive when
increased. Examining how teachers use formative assessment practices in the classroom
can be the basis for deciding what needs to be done to help improve those practices (Box,
Skoog, & Dabbs, 2015). Therefore, school leaders must have information about what is
happening in their schools regarding formative assessment use to determine what areas of
support should be targeted; without this information, their “efforts may lack focus and
Local school leaders’ concerns about lack of consistent formative assessment use
at Hammond were heightened after an external review was conducted at the end of the
school year. The survey revealed that “teaching and assessing for learning,” which
included questions relating to formative assessment, was an area that showed one of the
lowest ratings from parents (2015 survey, available as internal document). Because of
6
the low rating, school leaders added to the local school improvement plan a need for
helping all external stakeholders understand practices regarding teaching and assessing
learning at Hammond, such as how teachers check for student understanding so that they
practices in the classrooms may help school leaders address any stakeholder concerns
about teachers’ use of assessments to help students reach learning goals (Moss,
Hammond examined local school data from a student survey conducted by TRIPOD, a
school improvement company that collects and reports on student perspectives about
teaching and learning. From a sample of 428 Hammond students, TRIPOD found that
52% of the students taking the online survey marked true for the following statement,
"My teacher often thinks I understand when I really don't" (TRIPOD, 2016). One
interpretation of the TRIPOD respondent data could be that the information demonstrates
that students did not understand some of the instructional methods their teachers used to
assess their understanding, or they did not realize when teachers were implementing these
methods. The former explanation reflects a national problem where researchers have
found that teachers either do not check for understanding or that they do so ineffectively
or inconsistently (Fisher & Frey, 2014a; Havnes, Smith, Dysthe, & Ludvigsen, 2012),
and teachers often do not know how to adapt instruction based on the results of checking
7
for student understanding (Miranda & Hermann, 2015; Wood, Turner, Civil, & Eli,
2016).
observations by administration, and the results of local survey data from students and
practices, school leaders may provide necessary instructional supports to ensure regular
use of formative assessment. Over time, with proper supports in place, teachers’
consistent use of formative assessment at Hammond may help increase student learning
in the classroom. With a deeper understanding of curricular concepts, students can meet
state and district learning goals which may help improve overall student achievement
levels. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine how teachers
used formative assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction so
that leaders could make informed decisions to support the consistent use of this research-
has concerned educators from its formal introduction into the profession by Black and
unplanned, are used regularly during the learning process to provide feedback about
students’ current levels of understanding so that teaching and learning can be modified to
address any gaps in learning and to improve student achievement (Black & Wiliam,
8
1998b; CCSSO, 2008; Chappuis, 2015; Clark, 2012b; Stiggins & Dufour, 2009). The
both teaching and learning. Since its introduction, studies have shown that student
achievement can be linked directly to teacher use of formative assessment to check for
and to address student understanding (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Baird et al., 2014;
Conderman & Hedin, 2012; Cornelius, 2014; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012; Hattie 2012;
Hudesman et al., 2013; Madison-Harris & Muoneke, 2012; Yin, Tomita, & Shavelson,
2013). However, despite the body of research regarding the benefits of formative
assessment on student achievement, concerns about the manner and efficacy of teacher
use of this research-based strategy remain. Since Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) extensive
(2013) found that the research-based instructional practice “remains an elusive concept”
(p. 2). Several studies across the nation have shown that even when teachers use
formative assessments, they are often not implementing them as fully as possible (Wylie
& Lyon, 2015) to ensure students understand the concepts delivered in the classroom
(Earl, 2013). Likewise, studies have repeatedly shown that formative assessment is not
used, or is only superficially used, in most classrooms (Popham, 2014). Box et al. (2015)
9
declared that despite efforts of even large-scale institutions such as the Educational
Testing Service (ETS), the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the National
Academies, and the National Research Council to promote use of formative assessment
in education, “Formative assessment practices have not been heartily embraced by the
nation’s teachers” (p. 2). Furthermore, factors that may impede teachers’ use of
formative assessment are not clear (Heitink, Van der Kleij, Veldkamp, Schildkamp, &
Kippers, 2016).
assessment are also not well known (Sach, 2015). Some studies have found that many
teachers are not only using formative assessment inconsistently, but that they also are not
using it accurately (Earl, 2013). Several researchers have found that there seems to be a
lack of understanding about what is meant by formative assessment. Some practices that
teachers may believe are formative assessment, such as quizzes and unit tests that are
graded, may not follow the processes prescribed by and defined in the research (Clark,
2012a; OECD, 2013; Sztajn, Confrey, Wilson, & Edington, 2012). In addition, many
teachers have not received instruction on how to use formative assessment in the
classroom (Curry, Mwavita, Holter, & Harris, 2016; DeLuca & Bellara, 2013; Dunn,
Airola, Lo, & Garrison, 2012; Mandinach & Gummer, 2013). Factors such as the
misunderstanding of what is meant by formative assessment and the lack of training for
exactly how teachers implement formative assessment; only then can consistency of use
10
be developed (Duckor, 2014). By having more information about how teachers use
formative assessment, school leaders can gain insight into how they can support teachers’
in the classroom to recognize where students are in their learning and adjustment of
student achievement because students may understand the concepts more fully. School
leaders cannot afford to be uninformed about their teachers’ formative assessment use in
light of the large body of research showing the importance of its use in the classroom to
influence student achievement (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Baird et al., 2014; Cornelius,
2014; Hattie, 2012; Hudesman et al., 2013; Madison-Harris & Muoneke, 2012; Yin et al.,
2013). Therefore, if leaders throughout the field of education want to address issues in
their schools connected to student achievement, then they should have clear information
about how teachers use formative assessment to support consistent and accurate use of
this practice.
11
Definition of Terms
I have provided the following key terms and their corresponding definitions to
Assessment: A tool, task, or method that is used to inform educators about student
learning. Assessment can take the form of teacher questioning, teacher-developed tasks
2012).
Assessment for learning: Another term often used for formative assessment (Van
Convergent questioning: Asking questions that are primarily used for factual
recall (Jiang, 2014); also known as eliciting low-level thinking or close-ended responses.
question at the end of the lesson and submit it to the teacher when leaving the classroom;
teachers adjust instruction for the next lesson based on student responses (Andersson &
Palm, 2017). Exit slips are also known as exit tickets or exit passes.
2015).
12
Formative assessment: A process in which classroom tasks, planned or
unplanned, are used regularly during the learning process to provide feedback about
students’ current levels of understanding so that teaching and learning can be modified to
address any gaps in learning and to improve student achievement (Black & Wiliam,
1998b; CCSSO, 2008; Chappuis, 2015; Clark, 2012b; Stiggins & Dufour, 2009).
designed to facilitate student thinking” (Fisher & Frey, 2014a, p. 13). The process should
involve feedback from formative assessment tasks that check for student understanding.
formative question, a student or several students answer, and the teacher gives feedback
13
on whether the answer was correct or incorrect (Duckor, 2014; Pearsall, 2018; Wiliam,
2014).
participation from all students to help teachers quickly reveal what students understand
educator effectiveness and results for all students occurs within learning communities
process, tailored to the individual’s needs (and ZPD) and may take the form of such
things as modeling, coaching, prompting, key questions, and other forms of feedback”
achievement after a period of learning. This type of assessment is often used for
questions at the beginning of class; teachers use the feedback to determine the current
level at which a student can handle a problem or complete a task independently and the
level at which the student can handle or complete the same task with assistance from a
more competent other, such as a teacher” (Trumbull & Lash, 2013, p. 5; Vygotsky,
1978).
Decades of research have shown that using formative assessment can positively
influence student achievement (Baird et al., 2014; Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Cornelius,
2014; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012; Hudesman et al., 2013; Madison-Harris & Muoneke,
2012). Studies have also shown that student achievement may be improved in schools
where teachers use this research-based strategy appropriately (Ali & Iqbal, 2013;
Andersson & Palm, 2017; Hattie, 2012; Mehmood, Hussain, Khalid, & Azam, 2012; Yin
highly effective practices such as formative assessment (Chan, Konrad, Gonzalez, Peters,
& Ressa, 2014). School leaders play an important role in teachers’ appropriate use of
formative assessment practices (Stanley & Alig, 2014). With better understanding of
how teachers use formative assessment to check for understanding and to adjust
instruction, school leaders can make better decisions as to what instructional and
the vast number of studies showing a connection between teacher formative assessment
15
use and student achievement (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Baird et al., 2014; Cornelius,
2014; Hattie, 2012; Hudesman et al., 2013; Madison-Harris & Muoneke, 2012; Yin et al.,
School leaders may use formative assessment information from this study to
encourage consistency and fidelity of the use of this instructional strategy. The
information resulting from this study may also show a need for continued monitoring of
formative assessment practices. As Fisher and Frey (2014a) stated, having accurate
information about formative assessment use in a school is essential for helping leaders
create an appropriate climate for promoting and sustaining this practice. Being informed
about teacher formative assessment use will also allow Hammonds’ leaders to present
and assessing practices within the school and to show how formative assessment is being
Teachers at Hammond may also benefit from the information about formative
assessment use that this study offers. With support from school leaders, teachers may
check for student understanding and adjust their instruction to address any
misunderstandings they uncover with more fidelity. These instructional practices are
important because studies have shown that when teachers are appropriately using
formative assessment, student achievement increases (Ali & Iqbal, 2013; Andersson &
16
Palm, 2017; Hattie, 2012; Madison-Harris & Muoneke, 2012). Student achievement is
not only significant to school leaders, but with increasingly rigorous teacher evaluation
systems across the nation that include student achievement, it is also of growing
importance to teachers. Popham (2013) even advised, “The higher the stakes associated
with a given teacher evaluation system, the greater should be a teacher’s interest in
becoming a skilled user of formative assessment” (p. 13). Research distinctly has shown
that teachers who use formative assessment are more likely evaluated as instructionally
effective (Popham, 2013; Stiggins, 2014). Because many teacher evaluation tools, such
as the Danielson Framework (2007) used at Hammond, contain rubrics about the extent
formative assessment practices are used to uncover and address student understanding,
student’s ability to meet learning goals. Yin et al. (2013) declared that formative
curricular concepts taught in class. An increased understanding of the concepts may help
students pass more classes at Hammond and therefore earn the necessary credits to move
to the next grade level and to graduate on time. Research has also shown that
formative assessment in the classroom (Conderman & Hedin, 2012; Curry et al., 2016).
learning goals, then students may also improve on state assessments. Taken together,
17
these potential results for school leaders, teachers, and students may lead to positive
social change by helping all stakeholders gain the necessary information about teacher
formative assessment use to increase student understanding and potentially raise student
achievement levels at Hammond so that students can be better prepared for the future.
Research Question(s)
School leaders at Hammond were concerned with the lack of consistent use of
formative assessment and needed to better understand how teachers used this
instructional practice so they could address this issue. Teacher data and insights needed
based practice. I conducted a qualitative case study that concentrated on the manner and
degree that teachers used formative assessment in classrooms to check for student
formative assessment theory (Black & Wiliam, 1998b) that I will discuss in the next
section.
I developed the following questions as the basis for this study to gather
searching the following databases through university library resources and online
Central, SAGE Premier, Science Direct, ResearchGate, Taylor and Francis Online, and
conducted within the past 5 years from 2013-2018. However, I used older literature
research was analyzed and divided into the following topics: a brief history of formative
assessment, formative assessment and student achievement, and the two formative
practices that are at the center of this study—checking for understanding and adjusting
instruction. Subtopics within the two formative assessment practices include formatively
information from formative assessment, and making instructional decisions. I used the
following search terms in the databases to find research pertinent to the topics of this
assessment. Close to 100 articles met the criteria for inclusion in this literature review.
Framework
This study was informed by the work of Black and Wiliam (1998b) who laid the
foundation for the formative assessment theory, which is the idea that student
assessment, feedback, and instructional adjustments. Black and Wiliam (2009) declared
that formative assessment provides information to students and teachers during the
learning process about how well students are progressing toward intended learning goals.
Black and Wiliam (1998b) realized the importance of the connection between
discovering what students know during formative assessment and the need for teachers to
adjust their instruction accordingly. They argued that an assessment becomes formative
only when the information gathered from the assessment is used to modify classroom
instruction to address student learning needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998b). Black and
Wiliam (2009) insisted that teachers must understand formative assessment well to use it
to help identify gaps between students’ current understanding and the desired learning.
Teachers can then make decisions as to what instructional strategies they can use to help
Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) theory of formative assessment is based on the social
and teachers interact with one another during the formative assessment process. The
teachers monitor learning through dialogue with students, and students learn from each
other, from the teacher’s feedback, and from instructional supports (Torrance, 2012).
activities. Rather, it’s made up of a sequence of moves that invite a positive ongoing
Although the student and the teacher both have roles in social learning, in this
study I focused on the role of the teacher. The social development theory (1978)
highlights the contributions of teachers who have already developed the needed skills and
knowledge to assist students in their learning (Piaget, 1954; Vygotsky, 1978). While
helping students with knowledge assimilation, teachers must recognize and address the
gaps between current student understanding and the intended learning goals. Formative
current levels of understanding and their potential levels (Clark, 2015; Magno & Lizada,
2015; Sach, 2012; Sach, 2015; Trumbull & Lash, 2013). According to Trumbull and
Lash (2013):
The ZPD is the developmental space between the level at which a student can
handle a problem or complete a task independently and the level at which the
student can handle or complete the same task with assistance from a more
supports) for students to reach intended and attainable learning goals (Crossouard &
Pryor, 2012; Heritage & Heritage, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978; Wiliam, 2009). The learning
gap “is eventually closed when the child starts to demonstrate skills and can accomplish
the assessment tasks” on his or her own (Magno & Lizada, 2015, p. 28). Therefore, the
ZPD and the purpose of formative assessment are well aligned, and by checking for
student understanding during the formative assessment process, teachers can determine a
student’s ZPD and what scaffolds are needed (Torrance, 2012; Vygotsky, 1978). After
gathering formative assessment feedback, teachers can decide if they need to modify their
instruction to meet the needs of the students. If formative assessment practices show that
students understand curricular concepts and “the relevant ZPD conceptual structure can
be met” (p. 187), then teaching and learning can move forward (Heritage & Heritage,
relevant ZPD structure must stimulate the teacher to take stock of the situation,
and make choices about the appropriate next step and how it may be implemented
In other words, teachers may decide to reteach or re-explain concepts using scaffolds to
close the learning gap so that students can develop understanding. In short, Clark
(2012b) pointed out that the theory of formative assessment is based on the teacher
22
appropriately adjusting instruction to meet students at their current level of
understanding. This means formative assessment practices become an integral part of the
Formative assessment can be conceptualized into key processes and roles that
allow for useful integration into classroom practice. Wiliam (2018) outlined three
processes to consider with formative assessment: where the students are at in their current
learning, where the students should be at in their learning, and what must be done to help
them get there. There are also three roles to consider within these processes: the teacher,
the student, and the peers (Wiliam, 2018). Even though students and peers have an
important part in the formative process, in this study, I focused specifically on the
teacher. The main role of the teacher in formative assessment, according to Heritage and
Heritage (2013), is to “elicit data that can inform the direction of learning during its
ongoing process” (p. 176). Specifically, the teacher gathers information on student
understanding, analyzes and interprets the data, and adjusts his or her instruction
accordingly (Chappuis, 2015). The research questions for this study, therefore, were
where students are at in their learning (checking for understanding) and how to help
through interviews to uncover their knowledge and use of this research-based practice.
The data gathered from the research questions will help address the lack of consistent use
of formative assessment at the local high school. The results might help leaders gain a
23
clearer picture of formative assessment use in their building. School leaders can then
determine what steps, if any, are needed to support consistent formative assessment
Assessment has long been a part of the educational landscape to measure the
achievement or abilities of students, but assessment diverged into two categories with
different roles in the late sixties—summative and formative. The terms summative and
formative, first introduced by Scriven in 1967, describe two types of evaluations that can
be used to measure the quality of curricular programs. Scriven (1967) used the two terms
information is used to determine if the implemented program has met its intended goals
implementation (formative). Two years later, Benjamin Bloom (1969) suggested that
summative and formative evaluations could be connected to teaching and learning and
began to delve into how formative evaluation processes could be used to assess student
learning. Bloom (1969) described his view of formative evaluation as “brief tests used
by teachers and students as aids in the learning process” and argued that “we see much
more effective use of formative evaluation if it is separated from the grading process and
used primarily as an aid to teaching” (p. 48). Hence, the idea of formative assessment as
a diagnostic tool influencing teacher instruction was formed; one that encouraged
consideration of formative assessment use in the classroom, however, did not take place
until after the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was enacted in 2001 (Popham, 2013).
standardized tests to students yearly, and to regularly show improvements in test scores.
These summative tests took place after student learning occurred and did not help
teachers assess and improve student learning throughout the year until it was virtually too
late. Because of NCLB, educators in the United States were “feverishly searching for
ways to boost student achievement so they could dodge NCLB’s negative sanctions;”
they soon started to “give serious attention” to implementing formative assessment in the
understanding during the learning process so they can positively affect student
focused on Black and Wiliam’s influential 1998 publication, “Inside the Black Box.”
Black and Wiliam (1998b) found this practice to be a powerful tool that could yield
significant learning gains. However, Black and Wiliam cautioned that significant work
classrooms. They made the following recommendations: (a) formative assessment work
25
will require significant changes in pedagogy and classroom practice; (b) assumptions
about what makes for effective learning must be revisited; (c) feedback between the
teacher and learner needs to be enhanced; and (d) for assessment to be formative, results
must be used to adjust teaching and learning. Black and Wiliam (1998a) made these
recommendations because they noted that teachers did not seem to understand or
assessment in classroom practice prevails today (Box et al., 2015; Earl, 2013; Popham,
years to determine what makes an assessment formative. In fact, the wide range of
formative assessment and its ineffective use in the classroom (Filsecker & Kerres, 2012;
Havnes et al., 2012). Studies have shown that when teachers do not understand what
formative assessment with their students (Clark, 2012a; OECD, 2013; Sztajn et al.,
2012). Because of the complexity and the confusion surrounding formative assessment, I
assessment helped clarify the main characteristics that were important to its
be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are
engaged” (p. 7). Black and Wiliam (1998b) later updated this definition by adding that
instruction to meet student learning needs. Though early definitions such as these are
frequently cited in the literature, the main characteristics of formative assessment have
evolved over the years to highlight and clarify key aspects that researchers deem
practice (Chan et al., 2014; Chappuis, 2015; Clark, 2012b; Magno & Lizada, 2015).
One characteristic of formative assessment that gained attention was its use to
understanding during a lesson was a rather new concept a couple of decades ago. In the
past, assessments were best known as a way to determine what a student knew at the end
of a learning cycle to establish their academic standing, often in the form of a letter grade
which set it apart from the well-known summative assessment, is that it includes
monitoring student learning during the instructional process (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2002).
Stiggins and DuFour (2009) expanded on this difference by clarifying the frequency in
which monitoring should take place in the classroom. They stated, “Formative classroom
assessments must provide an answer about where a student is located in his or her
27
learning, not once a year or every few weeks, but continuously while the learning is
happening” (p. 641). More specifically, Havnes et al. (2012) recommended that teachers
should use formative assessment every day to help students gain a complete
Another feature of formative assessment is that teachers may need to modify their
understanding. Black and Wiliam (1998b) were first to insist that for assessment to be
formative, the results must be used to adjust teaching. Likewise, Tomlinson (1999)
declared that formative assessment “is today’s means of understanding how to modify
tomorrow’s instruction” (p. 10). Because of the focus on formative assessment’s role in
instruction, Black and Wiliam (2009) revised their previous definition of formative
to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or
better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the
More recently, Miranda and Hermann (2015) discussed the need for formative
assessment to be used to modify instruction, but they added that the adjustments could be
done “in real-time” and that teachers are better able to adapt their teaching when
about the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter
which is used to alter the gap in some way” (p. 4). This definition, however, does not
explain how information about the gap is used. Sadler (1989) clarified this ambiguity by
explaining that feedback can provide information for both the teacher and the student to
make improvements—the teacher for decision-making and the students for self-
monitoring. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2008), who worked
used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing
outcomes” (CCSSO, 2008, p. 3). The most effective feedback is from student to teacher.
Formative assessment helps teachers determine what students know, what they
understand, what errors they are making, and what misconceptions they may have
(Hattie, 2012). Collecting feedback from students is not enough, however. Hudson et al.
(2013) and Van der Kliej et al. (2015) clarified that feedback is formative only when a
teacher uses it to make decisions to adjust their instruction and provide instructional
Feedback should also include information given from teachers to students. In the
improve student learning (Hudesman et al., 2013). One way this teacher-student
exchange can happen is after students have completed a formative assessment task and
the teacher provides the whole group with the correct answers (Magno & Lizada, 2015).
Another way for the teacher to provide corrective feedback is while students are actively
working on a formative assessment task (Clark, 2012a). During the task, which can be
written or verbal, teachers “specifically point out what needs to be checked again,
improved, revised, changed, or reworked” (Magno & Lizada, 2015, p. 27). Not only will
teacher interactions during or after a formative task provide students with corrective
feedback, but prompt communication will also allow students to understand where they
stand in relation to the learning goals (Clark, 2012b). To address areas where
manner to assist them in progressing their learning toward established curriculum goals
has been found to be especially important for struggling learners as it focuses their
use is viewed as a process. Black and Wiliam (1998b) first described formative
as a process rather than a specific instructional task, tool, or test used to gather
30
information in the classroom. They also acknowledged that many different types of
formative assessment strategies can be used during the process to inform instructional
that begins with checking for student understanding. The teachers must then continue to
the next step by deciding, based on formative feedback from students, whether or not to
make adjustments to their instruction to help learning progress, and if so, what
only thought of as a test or instrument and not a process, the benefits of the instructional
practice for teaching and learning might be lost. She warned, “This distinction is critical,
not only for understanding how formative assessment functions, but also for realizing its
promise for our students and our society” (Heritage, 2010, p. 1).
other researchers agree that it can be either planned or unplanned (Antoniou & James,
2014; Havnes et al., 2012). Chappuis (2015) stated that formative assessment could be
thought of in two ways: (a) formal formative assessment, which is planned in advance of
a lesson to gather information about student understanding during instruction; and (b)
informal formative assessment, which is not planned; the assessment is done on-the-fly or
can allow teachers the freedom to use formative tasks whenever they see a need to check
found in the literature when developing the formative assessment definition for this
31
study. I began with Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) definition, but gave greater clarification
(Stiggins & Dufour, 2009), (b) formative assessment helps to close a learning gap
between what students currently understand and the established learning goals (Clark,
2008), and (d) formative assessment is a process that can be planned or unplanned
(Chappuis, 2015). Therefore, in this study formative assessment was defined as a process
in which a classroom task, planned or unplanned, is used regularly during the learning
teaching and learning can be modified to address any gaps in understanding and improve
student achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; CCSSO, 2008; Chappuis, 2015; Clark,
assessment is used to measure student understanding after learning has taken place
(Filsecker & Kerres, 2012; Roskos & Neuman, 2012). The main purpose of summative
(Fisher & Frey, 2014a, p. 7). Summative assessment can take the form of unit tests,
32
standardized tests, district exams, grade-level tests, and final exams. Educators give
summative assessments less frequently than formative assessments, and they are usually
graded (Dixson & Worrell, 2016). Therefore, summative assessment is not beneficial for
not provided teachers the timely feedback needed to adjust their instruction or to give
students the information they need to improve while they are learning (Conderman &
identifying problems when it is too late to resolve them” (Akpan, Notar, & Padgett, 2012,
p. 84).
(Antoniou & James, 2014; Birenbaum et al., 2015; Sach, 2015). Antoniou and James
(2014) stated that “although educational policy usually acknowledged the value and
assessment which is politically more powerful and influential” (p. 154). Therefore, even
assessment in schools could cause them to feel the need to spend their attention on
summative assessment. Teachers, in a study by Sach (2015), stated that they felt
“considerable pressure to meet government targets for attainment” and this pressure had
“the potential to inhibit the use of more formative assessment methods” (p. 329).
Likewise, Yan and Cheng (2015) discussed how the focus on summative assessment
33
could affect teacher implementation of formative assessment. They warned that teachers
might not use formative assessment in their teaching, even when they understand the
advantages of the practice, because they feel the pressure to meet the instructional
why only a small number of teachers are found to frequently use formative assessment
Teachers may also be confused about the difference between formative and
study on formative assessment use in classrooms. They found that educators thought
formative assessment was “summative assessment done more often” or as a “practice for
regularly and to inform teaching (p. 151). Studies such as this demonstrate how
diagnostic tool to aid the teaching and learning process (OECD, 2013). Clark (2012a), in
his investigation about formative assessment use in the classroom, also discovered
confusion about the two types of assessment. He found that many teachers believe they
are using formative assessment when they are using summative assessment. As a result,
teachers often use formative assessment to give grades instead of using them to help
advance teaching and learning. Such incorrect use of formative assessment is concerning
considering its well-documented link to student achievement (Andersson & Palm, 2017;
Cornelius, 2014; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012; Hattie, 2012; Hudesman et al., 2013;
and learning, summative assessment also has its role in education. Summative
goals, programs, or curriculum alignment (Conderman & Hedin, 2012). For students and
parents, summative assessment may help provide the information needed to make
decisions about which schools to attend, which support programs to join, or which
courses needed to meet educational goals (Tridane, Belaaouad, Benmokhtar, Gourja, &
Radid, 2015). Summative assessment also, especially due to NCLB, pressures educators
to find ways to address achievement gaps and increase student achievement (Birenbaum
et al., 2015). Therefore, summative and formative assessment may work together to
influence student learning (Clark, 2015). As Clark (2015) suggested, what is needed is
system so that they work in concert to support and evaluate learning” (p. 93). Bennett
(2014) explained that schools need formative information for making important
information to evaluate students academically and socially. Not all researchers agree that
there should be an equal balance. Spector et al. (2016) recommended more attention
associated with improved learning. When teachers are encouraged to use formative
assessment, increased student achievement on summative assessment will follow (Yan &
Cheng, 2015).
35
Formative Assessment and Student Achievement
formative assessment use in the classroom led to higher student achievement. After a
meta-analysis of over 250 publications on formative assessment, they found the effect
sizes for student achievement were between 0.4 and 0.7. They concluded that student
academic achievement gains, as a result of formative assessment use, were “amongst the
largest ever reported for educational interventions" (p. 61). Studies included participants
Students in the experimental groups, where teachers used formative assessment, had
“significantly higher scores in reading, mathematics, and science than the control group”
(Black & Wiliam, 1998a, p. 12). Furthermore, Black and Wiliam (1998b) found that
students, frequent formative assessment use was especially beneficial for low-achieving
students.
Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) work. Two studies, conducted by Dunn and Mulvenon
(2009) and Kingston and Nash (2012), cited flawed research designs such as different
studies, and extraneous variables. As a result, the researchers determined that the
36
influence of formative assessment on student achievement was insufficient. After
conducting a critical analysis of the studies Black and Wiliam (1998b) used for their
research, as well as other published materials on formative assessment in the decade that
followed, Dunn and Mulvenon (2009) concluded that research does support a connection
between formative assessment and student achievement. Even though they cited some
problems with methodologies and suggested more research was needed, they
analysis about the efficacy of formative assessment in grades K-12 and came to similar
conclusions as Dunn and Mulvenon (2009). After reviewing and applying their inclusion
criteria to over 300 studies, which left them finding only 13 acceptable to use, Kingston
and Nash (2012) determined the weighted mean effect size of formative assessment on
student achievement was 0.28. Even though their results were significantly lower than
Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) effect size, they recognized that formative assessment has
“great practical significance in today’s accountability climate” (Kingston & Nash, 2012,
p. 34). Even though both Dunn and Mulvenon (2009) and Kingston and Nash (2012)
concluded that the degree of influence formative assessment had on student achievement
was debatable, they did acknowledge, however, that formative assessment had positive
influences on student achievement. Many researchers over the past decades have come to
yielded the highest effect size on student achievement. Hattie (2012) completed over 800
which instructional strategies produced the highest influence on learning. He found two
practices that are part of the formative assessment process to be among the highest effect
size of the strategies studied. Teacher questioning (a way to check for understanding)
had an effect size of 0.46 and student-to-teacher feedback (data teachers collected about
student understanding to inform their teacher) had an effect size of 0.73 (Hattie, 2012).
Furthermore, Hattie (2012) discussed how immediate feedback to teachers and students
during formative assessment could yield substantial results. In fact, he stated that when
percent increase in the speed of student learning, even when this learning is measured by
standardized tests” (Hattie, 2012, p. 128). The significance of this finding makes a
compelling argument for using formative assessment to help support overall student
scores.
student achievement in a particular content area. For example, Mehmood et al. (2012)
pretest/posttest model. Statistical analysis of the pretest in the control and experimental
38
groups showed no significant difference. The experimental group, who was taught and
assessed by a teacher who used formative assessment practices, had a mean score of
26.86 in their posttest results as compared to the control group who exhibited a mean
score of 14.83, a difference of 12.03. Mehmood et al. (2012) concluded that formative
assessment played a significant role in student achievement for the group in this study. In
a similar study, Ali and Iqbal (2013) investigated how classroom formative assessment
use affected student achievement in science. Students in the experimental group were
taught six chapters in science by a teacher who used formative assessment regularly
throughout the lessons. The control group was taught with no formative assessment
practices, and they only took a summative test at the end of the chapters. The results
showed that the science students who were taught using formative assessment had higher
between formative assessment and student reading achievement on the 2009 PISA test,
schools in the U.S. participated. Li (2016) analyzed data from student questionnaire
items about the frequency of their teachers’ formative assessment practices, teacher-
student relationships, attitudes toward reading, and student scores on the reading portion
of the PISA. The results showed that “formative assessment is significantly related to
reading achievement both directly and indirectly” and “formative assessment and reading
achievement is significantly stronger for Black students than for White students” (Li,
39
2016, pp. 19-20). These findings show support for using formative assessment to not
only improve reading scores but to also help close the ethnic achievement gap in reading.
can help lower achievement gaps and raise overall scores. Research about formative
assessment use, linked to both increased classroom learning and standardized test results,
demonstrate how implementing formative assessment can be beneficial for schools with
achievement problems. Conderman and Hedin (2012) found that student achievement on
high-stakes tests “is directly related to high-quality classroom instruction, which requires
teachers to gather continuous formative student assessment data and adjust instruction
accordingly” (p. 168). Curry et al. (2016) conducted a study in a district that supported
student reading scores on the state assessments. Likewise, Hattie (2012) found that
assessment use. Research demonstrates a need for school leaders to be informed about
One important component of the formative assessment process is the need for
determine if students are learning the information taught to them. In other words, if
teachers do not know the current level of student understanding, then it is difficult to
40
address any problems that might be affecting student learning. When checking for
student understanding, the teacher uses formative tasks “to determine what the students
know and do not know, what they can do and cannot do, and their misconceptions, and
their confusion” (Magno & Lizada, 2015, p. 24). Teachers should ask themselves,
“Where are students relative to my immediate learning goals? Who is and who is not
understanding the lesson? What stands in their way of accomplishing the goals? Have
students progressed as I expected? Has their thinking advanced as I had planned? If not,
allows teachers to give students feedback on their learning and to plan instruction based
teachers can make good decisions about what actions to take, and with whom”
(Chappuis, 2015, p. 6). Formative assessment strategies are used to collect information
thinking (Kang et al., 2014). There are many formative assessment strategies that
teachers can use with their students to check for student understanding. In fact, Trumbull
and Lash (2013) purported that any instructional activity can be used for a formative
purpose if the activity reveals information about student understanding and can be used to
upcoming curricular concepts (also called assessing prior knowledge) (Clark, 2012b).
Conderman and Hedin (2012) suggested several strategies that teachers can use to
determine what students already know about a topic: class discussions, pretests, warm-
ups, admit slips, anticipation guides, or the first two columns of a KWL chart (K = what I
know and W = what I want to learn). Keeley (2013) also suggested using probes to
uncover student thoughts, especially incorrect ones, about a concept before instruction.
Teachers can use information gathered from any of these strategies, as well as many
others, to make instructional decisions about the amount of time and support to spend on
upcoming learning goals. The information elicited from formative assessment strategies
given before instruction can also help teachers learn about any prior student
misconceptions can give teachers opportunities to pre-plan questions and check for
student understanding during crucial learning points in the lesson (Chappuis, 2015).
if students currently understand the learning goals and to make immediate instructional
decisions based on the responses (Conderman & Hedin, 2012; Magno & Lizada, 2015).
Teachers can stop at different points in the lesson to check for student understanding,
which allows the teacher to closely monitor progress (Fisher & Frey, 2014a). Teachers
can give students formative assessment tasks during instruction such as writing answers
42
on dry-erase boards, holding up response cards, responding in unison, writing minute
with personal response systems (Akpan et al., 2012; Conderman & Hedin, 2012; Helf,
2015; Nagro, Hooks, Fraser, & Cornelius, 2016; Stefl-Mabry, 2018). The teacher’s goal
should be to use formative assessment strategies to assess all students so they can
accurately determine the current level of understanding of the class and make informed
instructional decisions (Fisher & Frey, 2014a; Wiliam, 2013). Based on student
feedback, the teacher can then decide to continue with the lesson or to stop and reteach
During this time, teachers can determine whether or not students have met the learning
goals (Wood et al., 2016). Post-instruction formative assessment strategies can include
exit slips, the last column of the KWL chart (L = what I learned), 3-2-1 summaries,
(Conderman & Hedin, 2012; Sass-Henke, 2013; Wiliam, 2014). Gathering information
about student learning at the end of a lesson allows teachers to adjust future instruction to
find in closing activities (Chappuis, 2015). In a follow-up lesson, for example, teachers
could re-explain concepts, reteach a lesson using a different instructional strategy, allow
for more practice to reinforce learning, or use the results of formative assessment to place
students into groups for differentiated learning (Helf, 2015; Mehmood et al., 2012).
43
The formative assessment strategies that teachers use can be either planned or
unplanned. Chappuis (2015) provided the term “informal” formative assessment for any
assessment that is not planned in advance and “formal” formative assessment for any
assessment that is planned. Response cards, signaling, a partner share, or one sentence
summaries are a few examples of formative assessment strategies that are often
unplanned. A teacher can quickly implement one of these strategies any time he wants to
check for student understanding. These informal formative assessment tasks, often called
on-the-fly, are beneficial “when teachable moments unexpectedly arise in the classroom”
(Yin et al., 2013, p. 534). On the other hand, answering warm-up questions, taking
multiple-choice quizzes, and filling out anticipatory guides are examples of planned
formative assessment tasks that teachers can give students. These tasks should be
prepared in advance of the lesson. Questioning can be a quick and easy informal
formative assessment strategy for teachers to use; however, questions should be designed
prior to a lesson to prompt deeper and more informational responses (Jiang, 2014; Smart
attached to [them]” (Nagro et al., 2016, p. 244). In other words, teachers should not use
formative assessments to academically punish or reward students for how well they
understand the curricular concepts during the learning process. Instead, they should be
used to inform teachers’ instructional decisions and to give students feedback that can
progress learning. Chappuis (2015) warned that grading formative assessment tasks
could negatively affect students and hinder the learning process. He stated that if
44
teachers assign grades to formative assessment tasks and students do not do well, students
may feel they are not good at something or are not smart; they may even give up.
Instead, the strength of formative assessment is that the process does not reveal to
students that they are not good at something but that they “aren’t good at it . . . yet”
(Chappuis, 2015, p. 26). As students become familiar with the formative assessment
process, they can learn that feedback from formative assessment tasks allow them to take
ownership of their learning so that they can be academically successful. The idea that
learning is a result of effort, not a lack of ability, can be especially beneficial to low-
achieving students or to students who need more time to process new concepts
many formative assessment strategies can be used at various times throughout the lesson.
However, for any instructional strategy to be considered formative, it must be used by the
teacher to inform instruction, not merely given as a task (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Black
& Wiliam, 2009; Chappuis, 2015; Duckor, 2014; Johnson et al., 2013; Miranda &
central to the formative assessment process, Fisher and Frey (2014a) have found that
teachers often do not conduct these checks effectively. One problem with
feedback about current levels of understanding from more than a few students at a time
45
(Fisher & Frey, 2014a; Helf, 2015). Formative questioning is a common way for
teachers to check for student understanding; but often when teachers ask questions to the
class, only a few students raise their hands (Duckor, 2014). Consequently, only having a
few students participate during formative assessment does not provide enough
information about the class’ current understanding and is "simply not sufficient in
determining whether or not students 'get it' " (Fisher & Frey, 2014a, p. 5). As Wiliam
(2014) pointed out, a problem also exists when teachers randomly call on students who
are not raising their hands. Teachers are still only assessing the understanding of a few
students. Instructional decisions based on only a few students’ responses are not likely to
yield success (Wiliam, 2014). There is a lack of feedback on which to make instructional
decisions when teachers only question a few students. Therefore, teachers must give
opportunities and encourage all students to express their understanding; not just a select
few. When formative feedback from all students is elicited, the teacher avoids being "out
of touch with the understanding of most of the class" (Black & Wiliam, 1998a, p. 6).
Once teachers begin to involve every student in formative assessment tasks, they can
develop a better picture of student understanding and can use the feedback to properly
Assessing the understanding of more students than just the few who raise their
hands is critical in urban schools. Johnson et al. (2013) found in their study of high-
performing urban schools that teachers gave formative tasks to check for understanding
from all students so they could ensure that every student was making progress toward
learning goals. For example, in a typical classroom, the teacher may call on students one
46
at a time to give an answer, leaving the other students unengaged and the teacher with
little information about the level of student understanding in class. Consequently, if the
few students who respond to a question do so correctly, then the teacher may falsely
conclude that all students understand and move on with instruction (Duckor, 2014;
Wiliam, 2014). Johnson et al. (2013), however, found that in high-performing schools,
teachers used formative assessment with all their students. For example, a teacher asked
respond and be engaged. The teacher could see all the answers and quickly assess the
level of understanding in the class. Johnson et al.’s (2013) research provided many other
in urban settings: (a) having all students respond in unison and listening to those with
different answers, (b) calling on students individually to gain more information about
their thinking, (c) having students write short responses and circulating around the room
to observe any errors in thinking, and (d) having students discuss concepts in groups
while the teacher walks around and monitors conversations for understanding.
Johnson et al.’s (2013) work demonstrated that teachers who used formative
assessment practices in high-performing schools rarely asked for answers from only a
few students. Doing so limits student involvement, and the disengaged students often fall
behind (Wiliam, 2014). Instead, teachers in these schools wanted to give all students
equal opportunities to respond to formative questions; this inclusive practice allowed for
better feedback about student understanding (Johnson et al., 2013). When teachers
routinely check the understanding of the whole class through the use of formative
47
assessment tasks, then student misunderstandings can surface (Fisher & Frey, 2014a).
Teachers can then adjust their instruction to address uncovered misunderstandings, close
learning gaps, and help students meet learning goals. Creating opportunities for all
important practice teachers can implement to help improve student achievement (Nagro
et al., 2016).
Also noteworthy is that there were clear expectations in schools where teachers
elicited responses from all students during formative assessment. The students knew that
“each day, in each class, they [would] be called upon to participate, engage, and
demonstrate their learning” (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 41). Because of these expectations,
students began to understand that the classroom was a place where errors and
share their thinking with others and knew that incorrect answers were a part of the
learning process (Black & Wiliam, 1998a). When students see the relevance of
tasks ultimately becomes an avenue for them to take ownership of their learning, an
strategy teachers use to check for student understanding, but it should be implemented
assessment process, teachers must use questions that check for student understanding
48
and, based on the responses to the questions, make instructional decisions to improve
learning (Jiang, 2014). Formative questioning refers to the process of asking questions to
check for student understanding and evaluating responses to adjust instruction (Jiang,
2014).
among these are using wait time, being purposeful, and planning. Hill (2016)
recommended that teachers allow for time between asking students a question and
prompting them for a response (wait time) to better determine the extent of student
understanding from their responses. Duckor (2014) added that wait time was especially
important in mixed-ability classrooms where there might be a need for longer mental
processing. By giving students extra time to think, teachers can involve more students in
the formative assessment process. As a result, teachers can gain an accurate picture of
the current level of understanding in the class. Unfortunately, Hill (2016) found that even
though research suggests teachers use longer wait times, there is wide use of short wait
times in practice.
and strategic” (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 38). The formative questions should be focused
misunderstandings (Duckor, 2014; Wylie & Lyon, 2015). Duckor (2014) stated that an
appropriate formative question “sizes up the context for learning, has a purpose related to
the lesson and unit plan, and, ideally, is related to larger essential questions in the
discipline” (p. 29). Teachers should also plan some formative questions in advance as
49
they consider learning goals, common student misconceptions, and the knowledge and
skills students bring with them to class (Wiliam, 2014). When teachers take the time to
plan formative questions in advance, the quality of their formative questioning increases
(Smart & Marshall, 2013); meaning teachers can elicit more developed student responses.
may allow teachers to make more informed instructional decisions that will help support
learning.
The extent of how aware teachers are about their students’ current levels of
understanding depends on the questions they pose (Smart & Marshall, 2013). Therefore,
the types of formative questions teachers ask students matter. Teachers should not solely
focus on formative questions with a simple right answer where a deeper level of
promote thinking and uncover students’ conceptual understanding. Staunton and Dann
teachers. They uncovered that teachers often ask low-level factual or recall questions
rather than high-level challenging questions that give them better insight into student
thinking. Several studies concluded that teachers lacked skills in appropriate formative
Marshall & Smart, 2013; Yin et al., 2013). Because the intention of using formative
questions will not elicit the feedback necessary to advance student learning to the extent
that it could (Bulunuz, Bulunuz, & Peker, 2014; Duckor & Holmberg, 2017). Heritage
50
and Heritage (2013) claimed, “When working within the ZPD, part of the teacher’s task
is to resist the temptation to foreclose the child’s own conceptual work through the use of
essential when used during the formative assessment process to help students meet
learning goals.
were primarily used for factual recall (low-level thinking) and (b) divergent—open-ended
that teachers asked significantly more convergent questions than divergent questions.
learning, Jiang (2014) recommended that teachers should aim to increase their divergent
questioning to elicit better formative feedback about student understanding. Black and
Wiliam (1998a) also proposed that teachers use more divergent, or open-ended, questions
to make better instructional decisions. Jiang (2014) agreed with this assertion and stated
that divergent questions are “capable of eliciting richer learner information” so that
teachers are “better able to gauge student needs and make pedagogical decisions
accordingly” (p. 297). Likewise, Ateh (2015) declared that it was essential for teachers
did not provide the information needed to make sound instructional decisions.
51
Similar results were found in Kira, Komba, Kafanabo, and Tilya’s (2013) study of
learning. Kira et al.’s (2013) research, like Jiang (2014), showed that most teachers
primarily used convergent questioning to check for student understanding. In fact, 80%
questions (Kira et al., 2013). In addition, teachers did not ask questions frequently nor
did they try to elicit responses from all students; they systematically called on the few
who raised their hands. This observation confirms the earlier affirmation by Fisher and
Frey (2014a) stating that teacher formative questioning is often ineffective and many
students do not participate when asked questions. If teachers only receive feedback from
a select number of students about their understanding, then responses from these few
active students may cause teachers to “believe that the same responses would be given by
the rest of the students if they were given opportunities to do so” (Kira et al., 2013, p.
73). The assumption that the understanding of a few is representative of all students
“leads to a false sense of feedback” (Duckor, 2014, p. 31). Insufficient feedback about
may result in teachers not addressing misunderstandings needed to help students meet the
learning goals. Students not meeting learning goals can negatively affect achievement
levels.
Miranda and Hermann (2015) found from their research that teachers were better able to
52
adjust their instruction and to help students gain a clearer understanding of curricular
concepts when formative assessment was used regularly in the classroom. Constant
checking for student understanding is a crucial part of the formative assessment process.
Johnson et al. (2013), in their study of high-performing urban schools, determined that
effective teachers check student understanding “continually and persistently” after new
curricular concepts are presented “to determine if students heard, processed, and
internalized the information accurately” (p. 38). More specifically, Havnes et al. (2012)
recommended that formative assessment should take place every day, whether it is
stating that formative assessment data from checking for understanding should be
collected daily to allow teachers to gain a more detailed picture of their students’ levels
made.
Popham’s (2013) research offered insight into how often teachers decided to
several factors that affected teachers checking for understanding: (a) the amount of time
to prepare the formative assessment task, (b) the amount of time to administer the
formative assessment task, (c) the student’s level of background knowledge, (d) the
complexity of the subject matter, (e) the teacher’s level of experience teaching the subject
matter, and (f) the teacher’s understanding of and commitment to using formative
as factors hindering its use in the classroom, school leaders may not have proper
53
instructional supports in place for consistent implementation of this research-based
practice.
Adjusting Instruction
information gathered from the formative tasks is used to adjust instruction (Ateh, 2015;
Duckor, 2014). In fact, Black and Wiliam (1998b) were the first to insist that for
Therefore, during this phase of the formative assessment process, teachers must now ask
themselves a different set of questions: From the information I collected about student
understanding, is there a learning gap that should be addressed? What adjustments should
instructional activities will help me bridge the gap between a student’s current level of
understanding and where they need to be? (Chappuis, 2015; Herman, 2013).
about student understanding, the next step in the formative assessment process is for
teachers to analyze the data so they can adjust their instruction to address gaps in student
learning (Konrad, 2014). Wylie and Lyon (2015) revealed that for teachers, the most
challenging part of the formative assessment process is the ability to use the evidence
collected about student understanding to inform their instruction. Miranda and Hermann
(2015) expanded on the struggle for teachers to connect formative assessment feedback
and instruction by stating, “In our 17 years of classroom experience in teaching and
Similarly, findings of Wood et al. (2016) also indicated that teachers do not
always know what to do after they have collected information from formative
assessment. Studies have revealed that most teachers had not been trained on how to use
(Curry et al., 2016; Dunn et al., 2012; Mandinach & Gummer, 2013). Lack of training
could contribute to teachers not using formative assessment data to make necessary
instructional changes to meet student learning needs. The inability to effectively use
“Knowing how to use such information to make instructional decisions is critical” to the
formative assessment process (p. 173). In other words, student learning may not progress
information collected about student understanding from formative assessment tasks, they
can then determine the appropriate next steps for instruction. Feedback from student
responses collected during formative assessment tasks is meant to supply teachers with
the information they need to make sound instructional adjustments that support student
learning needs. Trumbull and Lash (2013), however, identified that making instructional
adjustments was another area of the formative assessment process where teachers often
struggle. They found that teachers often did not know what to do with the data they
collected from formative assessment tasks. Even though teachers may have gathered and
55
analyzed data about their students’ understanding, they often were “not able to identify,
target, and carry out specific instructional steps to close the learning gaps” (Trumbull &
The time that a formative assessment is given during a lesson can affect how
assessment task given before instruction shows that students do not fully understand all
the concepts of the past lesson, then the teacher can choose an activity to review (Magno
& Lizada, 2015). Formative assessment tasks may also be given at the beginning of class
to determine if students have prior knowledge of a concept needed for the upcoming
lesson. If the data showed that students already knew the concept, then the teacher could
instruct at a higher level or proceed to the next concept; however, if the data showed
students did not have prior knowledge, then the teacher could spend more time on the
help teachers decide how to continue with the lesson. They may change the pacing,
help students practice concepts they are struggling to learn (Magno & Lizada, 2015;
Johnson et al., 2013). Teachers may also use guided instruction. Guided instruction,
according to Fisher and Frey (2014a), is “the strategic use of questions, prompts, or cues
designed to facilitate student thinking” (p. 13). These actions can help give the
scaffolding students need to move from their current level of understanding to the next.
Formative assessment data at the end of instruction can show if students understood the
56
learning goals of the lesson. Teachers can use the information to identify concepts with
which students are struggling and plan future activities accordingly (Conderman &
Hedin, 2012; Johnson et al., 2013). Whether formative assessment data are collected and
interpreted before, during, or after a lesson, teachers should ask themselves a question to
help determine how to adjust their instruction, “Do their [students’] responses reveal
13). The answer to this question can help teachers make more accurate and effective
By examining the learning goals and data collected about student understanding
from formative assessment tasks, teachers can thoughtfully determine what instructional
adjustments should be made to support student learning (Wood et al., 2016). On some
occasions, teachers may adjust their instruction with the whole class by reteaching or
many want to differentiate instruction to better meet individual student learning needs
determine which students are meeting learning goals and which need more support,
teachers can choose to match students with instructional activities to help bridge learning
gaps (McGlynn & Kelly, 2017). Sass-Henke (2013) suggested two types of instructional
adjustments for this purpose: remediation and enrichment. Remediation is any corrective
activity given to students needing extra practice (Sass-Henke, 2013). Examples include
reteaching, learning stations, correctives, peer tutoring, or technology tools. Teachers can
deliver these remediation activities to the whole class or just to individual students
57
depending on the formative assessment results. Enrichment activities, on the other hand,
can be given to students who understand the curricular concepts and meet the learning
goals (Sass-Henke, 2013). These activities extend student knowledge by providing them
with more in-depth learning on the current topic. Therefore, if teachers are continuously
using formative assessment data to adapt instruction, it will require them to be flexible in
their lesson planning, as “the weekly schedule can change on a moment’s notice if an
understanding check reveals a need for reteaching” (Sass-Henke, 2013, p. 45). Likewise,
Tomlinson (2014) expounded, “It is wasteful of time, resources, and learner potential not
learning experience informs plans for the next learning experience. Such an assessment
process never ends” (p. 14). In other words, the formative assessment process is a cycle
in which teachers must make instructional decisions based on student data from formative
assessment tasks, adjust their instruction accordingly, and then reassess students to
Implications
use and practices that affect student understanding of state and district learning goals and,
accordingly, have the potential to positively affect student achievement. School leaders,
with the information from this study, may be better able to support the consistent use of
formative assessment practices that help teachers check for student understanding and
adjust their instruction. The additional support may take the form of professional
development aimed to (a) introduce the purpose, role, and benefits of formative
58
assessment; (b) enhance formative assessment practices that data showed need
strengthening; and (c) demonstrate a variety of formative assessment strategies that can
implementation. Support would be especially beneficial for teachers who have never
participated in formative assessment training, which research has shown to be true for
most teachers (Curry et al., 2016; Dunn et al., 2012; Mandinach & Gummer, 2013).
This study could also help stakeholders provide the needed supports to further
teacher formative assessment use not only at the local high school but also at the district
assessment in classrooms to help students meet learning goals, school leaders may see
results such as better grades, more students passing classes, more students with enough
credits to move to the next grade level, increased graduation rates, and higher
Another outcome of this study may be school leaders’ realizations about the
implementation in their schools so that they can support consistent use of this practice. A
possible project could be to develop a tool and corresponding plan for school leaders to
gather information on how teachers use formative assessment to check for understanding
and to adjust instruction. A tool to gather school formative assessment information could
59
take the form of teacher surveys, observation protocols, or interviews. The tool, along
with an implementation plan for the school year, could help school leaders make
assessment supports. In addition, the formative assessment plan may also be used as an
evaluation tool to determine if the current supports school leaders have provided teachers
are effective and beneficial. Further studies may include a quantitative analysis to
Summary
students meeting learning goals. Despite several years of encouraging the use of
formative assessment in classrooms, the local data at Hammond High School revealed a
lack of consistent use of this practice. This qualitative case study explored how teachers
used formative assessment to check for understanding and to adjust instruction—the two
evidence that formative assessment use by classroom teachers can result in increased
achievement (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Baird et al., 2014; Cornelius, 2014; Filsecker &
Kerres, 2012; Hudesman et al., 2013; Madison-Harris & Muoneke, 2012; Yin et al.,
Hammond High School teachers’ use of formative assessment to check for student
understanding and to adjust instruction. The section contains a description of the study
design and approach, as well as a justification for the design based on the local problem.
I describe the criteria for the selection of participants and the data collection instruments,
which are in the form of observations, interviews, and teacher logs. Also found in this
section are the processes I used to protect participants’ rights and to ensure the integrity
of the information collected. In the final sections, I explain how the data was analyzed,
discuss the findings resulting from the analysis, and review the study limitations.
61
Section 2: The Methodology
The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain better understanding of how
teachers at Hammond use formative assessment to check for student understanding and to
adjust instruction to help students meet learning goals. Rich, thick descriptions of
understanding of concepts, were needed so that school leaders could make informed
approach that would, according to Yin (2016), yield the level of detailed data needed to
(Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2016). In this study, I interacted directly
practices and perceptions. Because of the “complexity of the setting and the diversity of
its participants,” Yin (2016) recommended that qualitative research include “collecting,
integrating, and presenting data from a variety of sources” (p. 11). In light of this
classrooms, conducting interviews, and examining teacher logs. Having multiple data
points allowed me to review and organize information “into categories or themes that cut
across all of the data sources” (Creswell, 2013, p. 48). The development of categories
and themes is part of the inductive nature of qualitative studies that researchers use to
make sense of the data and to develop a deeper understanding of the problem. Yin
62
(2016) described the inductive approach to qualitative research as one where the data
drives the development of broader concepts. The broader concepts in this study emerged
from the data analysis and identification of themes I used to make meaning of the
multiple sources of data collected from the participants. Meaning-making is the central
focus of qualitative research (Yin, 2016). By working to understand the practice and
information that Hammond school leaders need to make informed decisions to support
There are several different approaches, including case study, that can drive the
methodology of a qualitative study (Yin, 2014). According to Yin (2014), a case study is
recommended when a “how” question is asked and the research involves a set of events
that the investigator, at the location of study, does not manipulate or control. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) added that a case study includes an “in-depth description and analysis
of a bounded system” (p. 38). A bounded system includes a particular group of people in
a specific setting at a certain point in time (Creswell, 2013). A case study, therefore, was
a logical choice as the research methodology because I conducted this study at Hammond
High School, a bounded system, and I investigated in depth how teachers used formative
observations and interviews, give more insight into a phenomenon than a quantitative
study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated, “A central characteristic of all qualitative
research is that individuals construct reality in interaction with their social worlds . . .
63
[and] the researcher is interested in understanding the meaning a phenomenon has for
those involved” (p. 24). In this case, the phenomenon was teacher formative assessment
actions and perspectives, quantitative research focuses on the collection of numeric data
that can be used to statistically represent a population (Yin, 2016). I developed this study
usually involves manipulating and testing variables; this is contrary to qualitative studies,
which rely on minimal researcher intrusion (Yin, 2016). My intention for this study was
methodology would have been a less effective avenue to gather and analyze data. The
purpose of this study was not to determine the effect of formative assessment on student
achievement, which would require experimental research, but to understand how teachers
at Hammond used formative assessment practices to help students meet learning goals so
however, there are several methodologies to choose from within the qualitative tradition
analysis (Yin, 2016). There were several reasons why I selected a case study
methodology instead of one of the other qualitative approaches. A grounded theory study
64
results in a theory about a phenomenon that develops from the data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The purpose of this study, however, was to produce a rich, thick description of
formative assessment use at Hammond, not to propose a theory about its use. An
ethnographic study “strives to understand the interaction of individuals not just with
others, but also with the culture of the society in which they live” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 24). Although I acknowledge that school culture may affect teachers’ formative
assessment use or perceptions at Hammond, the intent of this study was not to focus on
the culture of the school but rather on how teachers used formative assessment to help
for a small group of individuals (Patton, 2015). Rather than collecting and reflecting on
the meaning participants make about formative assessment use, this study concentrated
on gathering data and reporting on how teachers implement and perceive formative
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although some narratives may be part of the
data collection process to help participants describe their experiences with formative
assessment in the classroom, participant stories alone would not give the depth of
information needed for this study. From examining possible research approaches for this
study, I concluded that a qualitative case study would be the best approach and
methodology to yield the necessary information local school leaders would need to help
them make informed decisions about how to best support consistent formative assessment
implementation.
65
Participants
Hammond High, a large urban school located in the Midwest United States, was
the setting of this case study. Hammond had a staff of 24 classroom teachers, seven
special education certified resource teachers who assisted classroom teachers, and four
administrative school leaders (a head principal, assistant principal, dean of students, and
school improvement coordinator). All four of the school leaders held their positions for 2
or less years. Hammond predominantly serves at-risk minority students. The staff had
been struggling with student achievement-related issues for many years including low
Hammond High School. The classroom teachers were all considered highly qualified to
teach in their subject areas, which meant that teachers had at least a bachelor’s degree,
possessed a state certification, passed basic skills and subject area examinations, and
taught within their majors or minors. According to the school administrator, there had
been a consistently high teacher turnover rate at Hammond for the past several years,
resulting in many new teachers in the building, a majority having less than 10 years of
2017-2018 school year, 63% were returning teachers and 27% were teachers new to
Hammond; of the new teachers, 22% were first year teachers. The teachers’ ethnic
one Asian. Of these teachers, 14 were female and 10 were male. Bachelor’s degrees
were held by 62% of the teachers, and 38% of the teachers had master’s degrees.
66
Participant Selection and Access
deliberately select participants who will yield ample pertinent data for a study. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) added, “Purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the
investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a
sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 96). Because the purpose of the study
was to gain information about how teachers used formative assessment to check for
select participants who would yield the richest information to answer the research
questions, I gathered a sample of participants from both genders and a variety of grade
levels, subject areas, and years teaching. Patton (2015) and Creswell (2013) called this
sampling is based on the logic that “any common patterns that emerge from a great
variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core experiences and central,
shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon” (Patton, 2015, pp. 234-5). Likewise, Yin
(2014) argued that researchers should gather data from participants with different
perspectives to gain the best insights into a phenomenon. Therefore, I saw the value in
obtaining information about formative assessment use and perspectives from a wide
range of teachers at the local school. This heterogeneous sampling of teachers allowed
for a wider scope of data so that school leaders at Hammond might have a more
began by completing a Request to Research form obtained from the local district. Upon
approval, I contacted the school principal by email and arranged a time to give a short
presentation about the study at a staff meeting. Because the purpose of the study was to
gain information about how teachers used formative assessment, I did not want only
emphasized at the presentation that teachers were needed whether they implemented
could contact me if they were interested in participating in the study. Volunteers who
contacted me were emailed an online form that asked demographic information such as
gender, number of years teaching, grade level(s) taught, and subject(s) taught. Even
though the study was about how teachers implemented formative assessment, the form
did not contain a question that asked teachers to gauge their formative assessment use.
The lack of knowledge about their formative assessment use allowed me to choose
teachers without regard to their formative assessment practices, yielding a more arbitrary
on the completed surveys, which represented a range of years teaching, grade levels
taught, and subjects taught. I contacted those participants selected for the study and gave
68
them consent forms. The signed consent forms are being kept in a locked file for 5 years,
The following demographics represented the participants: five males and five
females; five under the age of 40 and five over; six had under 8 years of teaching
experience and four had over 8 years, with an average of 9 years teaching; all identified
degree; and at least two classes from each grade level (9-12) were represented. Subjects
taught included science, language arts, mathematics, and social studies. There were one
advanced placement (AP) class, one special education class, and eight general education
classes represented. Four participants had also taught at a college before teaching high
school.
I used a sample size of 10 participants for the study (see Appendix B for
participant demographics). Patton (2015) asserted that qualitative studies do not have
rules for sample sizes; the size is based on attributes such as the purpose of the study, the
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) affirmed that there is no particular set sample size for
answer the research questions (p. 101). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also suggested that a
sample size depends on reaching saturation in the observations and interview responses;
therefore, the sample size needs to be based on the data collected during the study.
participant and from multiple sources to help achieve saturation (Patton, 2015).
69
Saturation, in this case, meant that I gained no new insights from responses given to the
research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, a sample size of 10
participants was enough to gain the necessary rich, thick data for the study to be
beneficial for school leaders to make informed decisions about supporting consistent use
of formative assessment. If saturation was not achieved with 10 participants, then I was
willing to increase the sample size to collect more data. Patton (2015) called this kind of
Genuine relationships that allow for open and effective communication with participants,
according to Yin (2016), can be challenging, so the researcher must consider how he will
accomplish this rapport ahead of time. To help build a good working relationship with
participants during all stages of the study, ensured participants of confidentiality, and was
available to answer any questions or concerns. When questions arose, I followed the
advice of Yin (2016), who suggested the researcher should handle them “in a
classroom observations, and discussions about teacher logs, and I considered each
participant’s schedule and availability (Yin, 2014). At all times, the participants were
treated with respect and their time was valued. Some participants knew me prior to the
study because I was previously a well-respected teacher in the school, whereas other
70
participants were hired after my tenure and required rapport-building. Trust and rapport
developed with all participants as I interacted with them throughout the study.
importance (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015; Yin, 2014; Yin, 2016). Before I
collected any data from participants for this study, I obtained approval from Walden
(2014) called this approval “the most imperative step” before beginning a study (p. 78).
All participants who volunteered to participate in the study, in accordance with IRB
guidelines, received and signed an informed consent that detailed the purpose of the
study, potential benefits and risks, protection from harm, and confidentiality. I also
informed participants that if they felt uncomfortable or wished to exit the study at any
All locations and people associated with the study were held confidential. I achieved
Participant 2 . . .” instead of actual names during the coding process and analysis write-
up. I also used a pseudonym for the location. All data collected were securely and
written reflective journal notes and protocols in a three-ring binder in a locked cabinet.
After 5 years, they will be shredded. I scanned all the field notes as well as the reflective
71
research journal notes electronically (identifiable information was redacted) or typed
them into a computer document that was stored on a password-protected flash drive. I
securely stored the flash drive in a locked cabinet in my home office when it was not in
use. I will store the flash drive for 5 years after the completion of the study and then have
it destroyed.
Data Collection
I collected data for the study from three sources: classroom observations,
individual interviews, and teacher logs. These data points were among several
recommended by Yin (2016) for qualitative research and were chosen to yield the rich
information needed for this study. Because the purpose of the study was to gain insights
into how teachers at Hammond used formative assessment to check for student
understanding and to adjust instruction, data points that provided information about
teacher formative assessment practices and perceptions were necessary. I chose each
data point for the study because of its potential to produce the information needed to
answer the research questions. Observations permitted me to witness how teachers used
formative assessment strategies and tasks to check for student understanding. Interviews
allowed me to ask open-ended questions to (a) gain a deeper understanding about teacher
formative assessment use, (b) determine how teachers used formative assessment
feedback to adjust their instruction, and (c) gather perceptions that may be influencing
teacher formative assessment use. I recorded data from a single lesson period for each
in the logs provided me with insight into how teachers used formative assessment to
check for student understanding and to adjust instruction during their daily classroom
instruction.
The three data points addressed the qualitative research tradition of triangulation
that is used to help establish credibility (Yin, 2014). I chose the data points so that the
research questions could be sufficiently answered and the study’s purpose could be
fulfilled. Taken together, the three data points may contribute to the results needed to
help local school leaders make informed decisions regarding formative assessment
support, thus satisfying Patton’s (2015) claim that using multiple data points serve to
I took highly detailed and organized field notes during my study. Field notes can
include settings, observations, and direct quotations (Patton, 2015). I allotted time after
each observation and interview to review, verify, and enhance field notes as prescribed
by Yin (2016). Field notes greatly assist a researcher during data analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In addition, I wrote reflective journal notes throughout the research
process to record questions, insights, potential biases, and emergent themes (Creswell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Patton (2015) recommended, I also made notes
Direct Observations
adjust their instruction after collecting feedback about student understanding from a
invaluable way of collecting data” that should be “highly cherished” because the
information is being sensed directly by the researcher and not filtered through another
person’s point of view (p. 143). In other words, observations are a firsthand account
rather than a secondhand narrative (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Patton
(2015), direct observations are also valuable because they allow the researcher to (a)
more deeply understand the context of the case, (b) be more open and inductive, (c)
notice nuances in which the participant may not be aware, (d) learn things that may not
be comfortable for the participant to discuss during an interview, and (e) form
impressions that can be used to help understand the participants and their settings more
fully.
To ensure that the data gathered during the observations were focused and aligned
with the research questions guiding the study, I developed an observation protocol (see
often used in qualitative case studies that allows researchers to organize and record
specific data and provides a space to record descriptive and reflective notes (Creswell,
2013). The categories on the protocol aligned with information addressed in the literature
review and allowed me to collect data to help understand teachers’ formative assessment
use at Hammond. Data collected for the protocol included information about (a) the
details of the setting, (b) the formative assessment strategies implemented to check for
74
student understanding, (c) when the strategies were implemented during the instructional
period (d) the breadth of feedback the teacher elicited about students’ current
understanding during the formative assessment task and (e) instructional adjustments
observed due to student feedback from the formative assessment tasks. These five
observation categories helped me answer the first two research questions regarding how
teachers use formative assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust
instruction.
Three colleagues vetted the observation protocols prior to its actual use (Yin,
2016). The first colleague had an advanced degree in education, was a reading
interventionist in a large urban school district for 13 years, and for the past 8 years has
been a reading specialist, consultant, and literary coach for teachers. The second
colleague had an advanced degree in education and leadership, taught Language Arts for
8 years, was a high school principal for 11 years, and for the past 14 years has been an
educational consultant. The third colleague had an advanced degree in education, was an
English teacher and reading specialist for 20 years, and currently supports students and
teachers in the area of literacy at a school she founded. I made changes based on my
colleagues’ recommendations.
interview), Yin (2016) warned researchers not to let protocols undermine their study by
restricting data collection. Because of the possibility of the protocol to limit data
collection, I kept “an open mind to capture properly a field perspective and to attend to
emerging and unexpected information” during the observations (Yin, 2016, p. 107).
75
Observations have many strengths and can yield valuable data during a qualitative
study; however, observations do have some drawbacks. A few weaknesses include the
possibility that (a) the researcher may affect the participant’s behavior, (b) the
researcher’s perception may affect the data recorded, (c) the observational data are
limited to what is observed during a given time period (d) the activities observed may not
be typical of an average classroom lesson, and (e) the researcher can only observe
behaviors, not what the participant is actually thinking (Patton, 2015). I collected teacher
Interviews
questions in advance that contains specific data needed from all participants; however,
there should be a mix of structured and unstructured questions to allow for flexibility
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Yin (2016) described the flexibility of questioning as a
perceptions and experiences” and permits the participants to “express their own
assessment practices.
Like the observations, I developed a protocol to ensure that the data gathered
during the interviews were focused and aligned with the research questions guiding the
study. An interview protocol is a guide that contains questions or prompts that the
researcher will use during the interview (Yin, 2016). All interview questions were
crafted with the purpose of the study and research questions in mind. I had the interview
protocol vetted by the three colleagues who reviewed the observation protocol, and I
made changes based on their recommendations. Questions included (a) Do you ever use
formative assessment to check for student understanding in class? If so, please give
examples and explain. (b) Discuss how often you typically check for student
understanding and why. (c) At what point(s) during a lesson/class period do you typically
use formative assessment to check for student understanding and what is the reason(s)
you use formative assessment at this time? (d) When you want to check for student
understanding, how do you decide what strategy to use? (e) Do you ever adjust your
instruction as a result of student feedback from formative assessment? If yes, how so?
(see Appendix D for interview protocol). Questions such as the latter provided insights
into how teachers used formative assessment to check for understanding and to adjust
their instruction.
I also developed several interview questions to answer the third research question,
“What are teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment to check for understanding and
to adjust instruction?” Questions included (a) In your own words, how would you define
77
formative assessment? (b) Do you believe there are benefits of regularly using formative
assessment to check for student understanding? If so, what are they? (c) Who should be
checked in class for their understanding of a lesson’s learning goals/targets, when should
they be checked, and how often should they be checked? (d) Are there challenges that
keep you from using formative assessment to check for students understanding and to
adjust your instruction with more fidelity? If so, what are they? (e) What instances or
circumstances might cause you to use formative assessment (to check for student
understanding and to adjust instruction) with more fidelity in your classroom? The
answers to these questions provided important insights into teacher formative assessment
use. The success of an interview relies not only on the quality of the pre-developed
questions and prompts, but also on the probing questions that can elicit more details from
the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, I asked questions when necessary
I scheduled interview times with participants via email. Interviews were no more
than 60 minutes long and took place in a comfortable and convenient location of the
reminded them that their answers were confidential. I paid special attention to keep the
verbatim responses from participants during the interviews were essential to data
analysis, all interviews were audiotaped (with permission) and later transcribed (Patton,
2015). During the interviews, I also notated participant responses, gestures, and other
78
nonverbal feedback (Patton, 2015). After each interview, I added details and made notes
(Yin, 2016).
Logs
To gather evidence that yielded greater insights into teachers’ daily formative
assessment practices, I requested that participants keep a classroom log. Yin (2016)
during a qualitative study. I made all participants aware of the obligation to keep a log
when they volunteered for the study. In the logs, teachers recorded information about
their formative assessment use to check for student understanding and to adjust
instruction. I developed the log for participants to capture their classroom data so that I
could gather more information about the research questions. The logs also served as a
only produced data about how they checked for understanding and adjusted instruction
during one class period, the logging was necessary to gather more information about the
depth and breadth in which teachers used these two practices. Information gathered from
the logs, along with the observations, interviews, and reflective research journal notes,
The log contained questions that assisted in answering the first two research
questions. The questions included information about (a) the formative assessment
strategy used to check for student understanding, (b) whether the formative assessment
was planned prior to the lesson or was unplanned, (c) when the strategy was given
79
(before, during, and/or after student learning), (d) the depth and breadth in which teachers
elicited current student understanding, (e) what was learned as a result of the information
gathered from the formative assessment, and (f) how, if at all, participants used or
planned to use the feedback from the formative assessment to adjust instruction (see
Appendix E for Teacher Classroom Formative Assessment Log). The same three
colleagues who reviewed the observation and interview protocols vetted the log. I
understand the value of teachers’ time, so I created the log to be the least intrusive and
time-consuming as possible. My colleagues verified the log’s ease of use and made
Participants received a copy of the log after their interviews. I explained the
purpose of the log, provided the definition of formative assessment used in this study for
clarification, and gave a sample log for reference. I asked participants to document
information about their formative assessment use on the log for one class period of their
choosing for 3 consecutive school days. I originally planned to ask participants to fill out
the log for 5 consecutive days, but based on the time of year I was conducting my
research, I decided that 3 days would be more reasonable for teachers. I determined that
this amount of time for teachers to log their formative assessment use would still provide
me with sufficient data. I advised participants not to change their normal teaching
email within three weeks to collect their logs. I transferred the data from the logs onto an
electronic document. The original paper copies are being kept in a three-ring binder in a
their classroom observation and interview. I chose to conduct the observations before the
questions about their formative assessment practices. Each participant received an email
reminder a day prior to their observation and interview times. Direct observations took
place for one 55-minute class period in each of the 10 participants’ classrooms. Before
the observation, I informed the participants that all data would remain confidential. I
encouraged them to plan, implement, and deliver their lesson as normal during the
my observation protocol.
Researcher’s Role
resigned from the district 2 years prior to the study to pursue other educational interests.
Therefore, I held no current supervisory role with the participants, and my previous
relationships at the school did not affect the outcome of the study. While teaching at the
local school, I worked as a mentor for student teachers and a facilitator on the school
instructional conversations that were helpful during data collection for this study. A
reflection on my experiences at Hammond, and within the district, revealed that even
leaders and teachers describe formative assessment practices that were summative in
nature. Knowing that teachers have varying and diverse definitions of formative
assessment may indicate a bias on my part. However, I examined the literature and
designed my study in a way to minimize any potential bias including asking several
educators to review my data collection instruments prior to their use and keeping a
previous experiences that could influence my research; therefore, I carried out the study
in an ethical and methodic manner. I had observation protocols and interview questions
vetted for prejudice, I cross-checked data for consistency among the three sources, and I
journal notes and did not note any emergent biases based on my work. Merriam and
Data Analysis
of the collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although I documented initial data
during the data collection stage of the study, final analysis began after the data collection
was completed (Patton, 2015). I followed the five-phase cycle of data analysis for
qualitative research recommended by Yin (2016): (a) compiling, (b) disassembling, (c)
82
reassembling, (d) interpreting, and (e) concluding. The phases are laid out sequentially,
but the actual analysis process is not linear in nature; the phases have “recursive and
Research Questions
In alignment with the framework for this study, I set out to understand formative
assessment use at Hammond to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction
Answers to RQ1 and RQ2 were generated from interviews, observations, and teacher
logs; answers to RQ3 were gathered from interviews. Reflective research journal notes
contributed to all three RQs by providing documentation of insights and emergent ideas
throughout the data collection process. During interviews, I posed questions designed to
understanding and to adjust instruction as well as to gain insights into perceptions that
demonstrate their knowledge of formative assessment, share how they used formative
assessment strategies to check for student understanding, discuss how they adjusted
83
instruction as a result of formative feedback, and reveal factors that influenced their
to check for student understanding and understand how participants adjusted instruction
based on student feedback. I also noted the extent participants implemented each of these
formative assessment practices; for instance, whether participants elicited responses from
a few students or the entire class, or how regularly they assessed students or adjusted
teachers used formative assessment to check for understanding and to adjust instruction.
All data collection instruments allowed me to engage with participants on a deep and
meaningful level to gather rich data about their formative assessment practices and
perceptions.
During the initial phase of data analysis, I compiled and organized all data from
the observations, interviews, and teacher logs (Yin, 2016). I made verbatim transcripts
from listening to audiotapes of the interviews and typing them into the first column of a
reflective research notes, and the third column was used for coding, which is described in
the next section. Observation and teacher log data were typed into a computer document
interviews and type handwritten field notes or other collected data so they can become
fully immersed in the data, which may lead to valuable insights. I recorded additional
insights that I uncovered while transcribing and rereading data in my reflective research
journal.
84
Coding
The coding process is a way for researchers to organize data “from the ‘bottom
up,’ by organizing the data inductively into increasingly more abstract units of
information” (Creswell, 2013, p. 45). I used open and axial coding to identify central
themes that emerged from the data while staying grounded in the conceptual framework
of the formative assessment theory posited by Black and Wiliam (1998b). The coding
process involved reducing data into smaller pieces and then rebuilding the data into larger
categories based on common patterns. During the disassembling phase of data analysis, I
assigned codes to fragments of data (Yin, 2016). Data from observations, interviews, and
teacher logs were reread line by line and small pertinent segments of data were
highlighted, coded, and recorded in the third column of a document. I noted emerging
larger categories as they developed. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) referred to the initial
coding of data as open coding. In the next phase, I used axial coding to reassemble the
data from individual codes into broader groups (Yin, 2016). Codes from the first phase
thoroughness during data analysis. During axial coding, I continually organized data by
comparing, modifying, and reshaping codes into more coherent groupings (see Table 1).
The categories that emerged from the data supported the research questions. Lastly, I
evaluated the data across the categories and several overarching themes emerged. The
themes captured recurring patterns found across all the sources of data (Patton, 2015).
Emergent themes can be susceptible to researcher bias during the reassembling phase of
four inductively developed themes: implementation, the feedback cycle, knowledge and
and adherence to evidence. Based on Yin’s (2016) objectives, I thoroughly described and
documented research procedures, and all data were available to participants, colleagues,
and the doctoral committee for review. Transparency allowed for scrutiny of my work
and refinement of my results. I used a carefully planned methodical approach for all
involved regular self-reflection to avoid bias. A reflective research journal was kept to
document emerging ideas and interpretive commentary. I collected detailed data, tested
the data for consistency from multiple sources, and objectively used the data as evidence
to draw conclusions for the study. I also established saturation after noticing a reiteration
validity, and member checks. Triangulation, a strategy that involves collecting data from
a variety of sources and methods, strengthened the credibility, reliability, and validity of
the study (Yin, 2014). Multiple data points—observations, interviews, and logs—were
used to triangulate the data to determine overall consistency of emergent patterns and to
86
confirm my findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While developing the observation and
colleagues with advanced educational degrees vet the protocols. They examined the
usability. I used the feedback to revise and improve the protocols; therefore,
strengthening the data collected as a result (Yin, 2016). Finally, through a process called
member checking, I asked participants to review the findings for accuracy of their data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants were emailed a summary of the findings in a
Google document to review. This method allowed for convenience and ease of providing
feedback. The member checks ensured my findings were not biased and confirmed
Discrepant Data
2015). Patton (2015) claimed that understanding contradictions in data or among data
sources could be “illuminative and important” and “offer opportunities for deeper
insight” (p. 553). Data gathered from observations, interviews, and logs helped
data resulted in the emergence of two themes: implementation and the feedback cycle.
Interview data analysis resulted in four themes: implementation, the feedback cycle,
knowledge and beliefs, and barriers and supports. Analysis of log data resulted in two
themes: implementation and the feedback cycle. Therefore, the three data sources
showed a high degree of agreement. Implementation and the feedback cycle themes
87
emerged from all three data sources. The additional two themes that emerged from the
interview data, knowledge and beliefs and barriers and supports, helped me gain insights
There were a few instances of inconsistencies within the data sets concerning
Participant 3. The participants in the study taught a range of subjects, grade levels, and
learning abilities. Included were one advanced placement class, one honors class, seven
regular education classes, and one special education resource classroom. Embracing data
Hammond. Even though there were many similarities in the physical and instructional
organization of the classrooms, some aspects of Participant 3’s special education class
differed from the others. Participant 3 had only eight students in class as opposed to an
average of 23 students in the other classrooms, which allowed her to more readily collect
feedback from all students. She, unlike the other participants, reviewed and collected
warm-ups from each student. Half of Participant 3’s class time each day was allotted for
remedial instruction and study skills. During the other half, students received assistance
on assignments from other classes—similar to a study hall but with individual teacher
tutoring as needed. Therefore, there was less time for Participant 3 to implement
collected during observations and recorded in the 3-day log. During the interview,
Participant 3 was also the only participant who could not correctly define any
components of formative assessment stating, “Um, FA assessment? I’m not really sure.
88
Would that be assessment based on individual needs or whether their levels of
functioning are met?” Participant 3 also said that she did not know if she used formative
strategies, I briefly summarized for her what was meant by formative assessment. The
participant did not realize formative assessment was the term for the instructional
strategies she implemented. Participant 3 might not have been familiar with the
terminology because this was her first year of teaching following a 15-year hiatus. Data
collected from this participant did not affect the themes or overall study findings.
There were some inconsistencies between log, interview, and observational data
regarding the amount of student feedback teachers elicited. Participants reported in their
logs that they collected student feedback from most or all of their students during
frustration with regularly receiving formative feedback from only a few students at a
time. Likewise, observational data showed that participants rarely asked for or received
feedback from more than a couple of students during a class session. There were only
two instances observed where participants asked for formative feedback from all
students; however, less than half of the class responded. Instead, participants collected
formative feedback from only a few students throughout the class session. In addition, 9
one of their top barriers to implementation. However, under the log heading “With this
formative assessment, I checked the understanding of (all, most, few, one, no) students,”
most participants indicated that they checked “all” or “most” of their students’
89
understanding during the formative assessment strategy they recorded. One possible
explanation for the discrepancy was that participants might have interpreted the question
to mean with what number of students they used the formative assessment strategy, not
and observational data. All participants who had recorded warm-ups as a strategy on
their log wrote that they gave the formative assessment before learning. By writing
“before,” participants indicated that their warm-ups were used to check for student
understanding before learning took place. In other words, they used formative
assessment to pre-assess what the students knew before starting the lesson. Yet, in the
warm-ups after learning took place to check for student understanding of concepts
previously taught. One explanation for the discrepancy might be that participants were
confusing the term “before” to mean “I gave the formative assessment before I began the
day’s lesson” (at the beginning of class) rather than “I gave the formative assessment
goals. The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers used formative assessment
to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction so that school leaders at
Hammond could make informed decisions to support its consistent use. Data were
90
collected from observations, interviews, and teacher logs. A thorough analysis resulted
and beliefs, and barriers and supports. The themes and supporting categories that
Theme 1: Implementation
assessment to check for understanding. This theme included the following subcategories:
use and communication of learning goals; formative assessment strategies used and the
reasoning behind their selection; and details on how teachers implemented warm-ups,
exit slips, and formative questioning—the three main formative assessment strategies
used at Hammond. The implementation theme aligned with RQ1 to give insights into
how teachers used formative assessment in the classroom. Wiliam (2018) recommended
implementation: Where are my students going? Where are my students right now? What
do I need to do to get my students there? In other words, teachers should ask themselves
what learning goals do I want students to know, what are my students’ current levels of
understanding, and what can I do to help bridge the gap between current student
understanding and the learning goals they must meet? Therefore, an important part of the
formative assessment process, and one with which teachers must begin, is to determine
what learning goals students must understand. Without establishing clear learning goals,
aligning formative assessment strategies with the goals, and communicating goals with
91
students, formative assessment implementation cannot be fully realized (Fisher & Frey,
2014a).
goals for the lesson. Seven participants posted learning goals (called learning targets at
Hammond) visibly in the classroom. Participant 1 asked students to write down the
learning target from the board onto an agenda sheet, and Participant 8 had the learning
target written on the board and typed on top of the students’ note sheets. Only Participant
10 reviewed the lesson’s learning target with the students at the beginning of class. Of
the seven participants with visible learning targets, three posted vague outcomes that
were not measurable and four had specific content-related outcomes. For example,
Participant 9’s learning target was ambiguous: “I can look at the history of Latin
America,” as opposed to Participant 8’s detailed learning goal which asked: “How do we
use our knowledge of points to identify segments, rays, and intersections?” Participants
5, 6, 8, and 10 had learning targets posted in student-friendly language; the other six
participants either had no learning target evident, or the target was written in the form of
a content standard. Even though some evidence of learning targets was apparent in most
classrooms, only Participant 10 mentioned learning targets (three times) during the
interview when discussing his formative assessment practices. As Fisher and Frey (2014)
process; teachers and students must know the aim of the lessons so that student
invited participants to give examples of strategies and to explain how they implemented
participants), warm-ups (nine participants), quizzes (eight participants), exit slips (seven
Other formative assessment strategies stated were choral response, learning logs, Kahoot,
Quizlet, and pair-share (Participant 1); one-to-five scale (Participant 2); timed readings
(Participant 3); muddiest point (Participant 5), and “thumbs up/down” (Participant 8).
Only Participant 1 mentioned using technology to formatively assess students. She stated
that she frequently used the web-based software Kahoot and Quizlet to formatively assess
participants also mentioned that Hammond had purchased classroom sets of clickers
several years ago. Clickers are a technology in which students use hand-held devices to
record responses that are immediately transmitted to the teacher via a software program.
during class. Nine participants specified that they implemented formative assessment
strategies daily in some manner. During observations, participants averaged using three
formative assessment strategies per class session. According to the logs, participants
94
implemented a total of 63 formative assessment strategies during a total of 30 classes,
thus averaging two formative assessment strategies per class session. Participants who
regularly used formative assessment stated that the practice allowed them to stay
informed about whether or not students understood what was being taught. Participant 1,
have no idea how anyone could teach the next day, let alone the next lesson in a unit,
without knowing and fully understanding where their students are at in the learning
process several times each hour.” Likewise, Participant 10 said he uses formative
questioning constantly throughout the class period and tries to stop every 20 minutes to
do more targeted checks to ensure students understand “what is going on” and that they
are “not getting lost.” The two participants who used formative assessment strategies the
least stated, “I do at least one formative assessment a day, the warm-ups, because the
school wants us to do that. I ask questions to everyone pretty much every day too”
(Participant 3) and once or twice a week “feels like a good amount for me to know what
check for student understanding: formative questioning, warm-ups, quizzes, exit slips,
and walking around observing or talking with students. These five formative assessment
strategies aligned with the strategies that participants reported using in class during their
interviews and on their logs. Participants revealed three main reasons they chose
particular formative assessment strategies: (a) they were most comfortable using these
strategies, (b) they were quick and easy to use, and (c) they were feasible to implement
95
given student behavior issues they often encountered. Only Participants 1 and 6 said they
chose strategies with consideration of which one would best show student understanding.
classroom (RQ1), I discussed in this section the three most implemented formative
Detailed data collected provided valuable insights into how participants used these three
beginning of class to check for student understanding about a past or upcoming lesson.
At Hammond, warm-ups were also known as bell-ringers or kick-offs. There was a high
amount of warm-up use at Hammond, which reflected participants’ reports that warm-ups
were a schoolwide initiative established at the beginning of the year. When probed about
administration’s purpose of this initiative, three main answers unfolded: (a) a way to
check if students understood the material covered in class, (b) a management tool to get
the classroom organized and started, and (c) an uncertainty of the purpose. Eight
participants stated in the interviews that they regularly gave students warm-ups, nine
participants implemented a warm-up during observations (Participant 10, who did not
implement a warm-up, mentioned he often had students complete a current events video
warm-up each day to assess summarizing skills); and participants recorded 20 instances
they used warm-ups in their logs (out of 30 total classes logged). Participants did not
always use warm-ups as a formative assessment. Some participants used them to have
96
students complete a managerial task (take out your computer and log in), a personal
reflection (what does this quote mean to you?), or as a classroom community builder
(write something that you want to share about your weekend). Only warm-ups with a
All participants stated that they planned their warm-ups, and they primarily used
them to check for student understanding of facts, skills, or concepts that students learned
in the previous lesson. Several participants mentioned that understanding the previous
lesson was important to understanding the new lesson. When I probed participants about
how they decided which questions to include on the warm-up to check for student
mentioned that their warm-up questions were based on student feedback from a previous
formative assessment, such as an exit slip. Participant 1 stated, “I use what I feel students
didn’t get the day before,” and similarly Participant 5 said, “It [question on the warm-up]
is mostly an intuitive feeling, I don’t necessarily have data.” I also noted that participants
gave students ample time to complete their warm-ups. Students were given between one
and four warm-up questions in which they had an average of 16 minutes to complete.
Also, most participants completed managerial duties, such as attendance and paperwork,
while students did the warm-ups. Of the nine participants observed implementing a
warm-up, seven participants did not check any students’ answers before reviewing the
answers aloud. Only Participant 5 walked around assessing student answers while they
97
worked on the warm-up. The participant gave students feedback such as, “It looks like
you are on the right track, keep going” and, “Look at number two again, what is the
question actually asking you?” Participant 5 also used feedback gathered from observing
student answers on their warm-ups to address misunderstandings with the whole class.
After the allotted warm-up time, most participants either gave students the answers, or
they asked for volunteers to answer the questions. Observational data indicated that the
few students volunteering answers were mostly giving correct ones. Participants spent
adequate time answering the warm-up questions, often asking formative questions during
the process.
writing their own answers. In seven classes, participants wrote the warm-up answers on
the board, and approximately one third of the students in each class wrote the answers on
their papers. Participant 4 and 9 admitted they often saw students copying the answers to
the warm-ups. After the warm-up, students in eight of the classes were instructed to keep
their work in their folders. Interview data showed that participants collected the warm-up
papers on Fridays. Most participants reported they did not look at the warm-up answers
but rather gave students credit for submitting them. Participant 9 illustrated the warm-up
implementation process, “They do it, we correct it in class most of the time, depends on
timing, I often write the answer on the board after I give them some time. Then they put
it back in their folder and get participation points for them at the end of the week.”
Exit slips. Exit slips are short formative assessment tasks given at the end of a
class to check for student understanding of what was taught during the lesson. Exit slips
98
are also known as exit tickets. Exit slips, like warm-ups, were a commonly used
formative assessment at Hammond. During the interviews, six participants stated they
used exit slips frequently. Observations revealed five participants implemented exit slips,
and two participants had planned to implement them but ran out of time (Participants 5
and 10). In the logs, participants used exit slips in 10 out of the 30 total classes.
Participant 7, who only used them occasionally, stated, “I do like exit tickets, I don’t do
them every day, I know I should.” Some reasons participants reported that they did not
implement exit slips more often included, “I always run out of time in class to give
them,” “I don’t have time to look at every exit slip every day to see what students are
understanding,” and, “Many students do not take them seriously or do not do them.”
Participant 1 stated, “This is a strategy I need to improve, I would like to find how to use
the feedback.” Participant 4 admitted, “I find it hard to get data with this strategy—to
have the answer actually be their own thoughts instead of just copying down their
neighbor. I hear them say, ‘What did you write?’ So, it is not a real good way to find out
Most participants said that they planned their exit slip questions. The one
exception was Participant 6 who stated exit slip questions were “usually based on the
discussion I heard in class during the lesson. They are usually unplanned. Sometimes I
think that they missed something during instruction that I think they need to go back and
think about.” Participant 6 prepared nine different baskets with half sheets of various
types of exit slips. She would decide which slip worked best for students to show their
understanding of the exit question she chose for the day. The other participants’ exit slips
99
consisted of a question or two written on the board; most provided space on students’
ups; they rarely checked student answers (Participant 2 and 6 looked at a few students’
papers when they asked questions). Most participants gave students the answers to the
exit slip questions during class. If participants asked students for answers, they would
receive responses from one or two students, again giving them limited feedback. On
average, approximately 58% of the students participated in the exit slip tasks. Many
students waited to copy the correct answers from the teacher instead of completing the
questions themselves; therefore, these students’ papers would show answers indicating
that they understood the content. In four of the five classes where participants gave an
exit slip, students copied answers from other students. For example, in Participant 4’s
classroom, many students were not participating in the lesson activity. During the exit
slip task, which required them to summarize what they learned from the activity, a group
of students who did not participate during the lesson asked a student who participated for
the answers. In most classes, students were instructed to place their exit slip answers into
their folders. Like the warm-ups, participants collected students’ exit slip papers at the
end of the week for classroom participation points. Only Participant 3 and 6 collected
exit slips daily. However, Participant 3 answered the exit slip questions with the class
prior to collecting them, so all student answers would be correct and not useful for
assessing understanding.
100
Formative questioning. Formative questioning is a formative assessment
strategy by which teachers ask students questions specifically to check for understanding
of content so they can make instructional decisions to improve learning (Jiang, 2014).
Formative questioning was the formative assessment strategy used most often to check
for student understanding at Hammond. Other studies have also shown questioning is the
main strategy teachers use to check for student understanding (Fisher & Frey, 2014a;
Heritage & Heritage, 2013). During the interviews, all participants discussed using
participants used formative questioning during the observations. In the teacher logs,
Even though all participants used formative questioning during instruction, the
way they implemented this strategy varied. Participants 5 and 10 asked formative
asked elicited more insight into student understanding than other questions. Participants
primarily asked low-level questions that were intended to elicit a right or wrong answer.
This finding reflects Jiang (2014) and Staunton and Dann (2016) who found that teachers
(divergent) ones. Low-level questions, which are often recall or factual, help teachers
needed to uncover deeper student understanding. For example, Participant 7 asked the
class, “What is the definition of a ray?” “Name a ray in the picture,” and, “Are BA and
101
BD opposite rays?” Students answering these questions only gave short right or wrong
answers. In contrast, examples of high-level questions for the same questions might be:
“BA is an example of a ray, why?” “How does a ray differ from a line segment?” and
Data showed that participants often continued with the lesson when they heard
correct answers from one or two students. For example, Participant 5 asked, “If an atom
gives away an electron, will it be more negative or more positive?” A few students
shouted “positive.” The participant responded, “Great!” Later in the lesson, it became
evident that students did not fully understand why the atom became more positive as they
struggled with changing atoms to cations and anions. Many students asked questions that
required the participant to spend time reviewing multiple examples. Only Participants 4,
9, and 10 (30% of the sample size) asked a mixture of low-level and high-level questions.
This finding corresponds to that of Kira et al. (2013) who determined that only 20% of
teachers were found to have balanced low-level and high-level questions. In addition,
eight participants acknowledged that the formative questions they asked were unplanned,
often called ‘on-the-fly’ questioning (Chappuis, 2015). They planned warm-ups and exit
slips but developed formative questions during the lesson when they saw a need. As
Participant 6 stated, “Most questions are done on the fly, like looking out and seeing
blank faces in the room or that feeling that kids aren’t getting it. Then I ask random
questions to hone in on what the actual issue is.” There were two instances of planned
formative questions: Participant 2, who stated that he often prepared several formative
questions to ask students about the days’ main objectives; and Participant 4, who
102
regularly displayed formative questions on PowerPoint slides to check whether or not
In almost all cases, participants posed a formative question to the whole class, a single
student to several students gave the answers without being called upon, and then the
The second theme that emerged from the data was the feedback cycle. This
theme encompassed both feedback about student understanding elicited by the teacher
and teacher use of the student feedback from formative assessment to make instructional
decisions. Therefore, the feedback cycle theme connected with RQ1 and RQ2.
Subcategories included student feedback to the teacher and teacher use of student
feedback. Discussed within the subcategories are how student feedback was elicited,
feedback about student understanding from the warm-ups and exit slips because of how
they implemented these formative assessment strategies. Data showed that participants
might not realize their low elicitation about student understanding because they often
indicated, in their interviews and logs, that they checked all students’ understandings
103
during formative assessment. This was clearly not the case during observations where
participants predominantly assessed only a few students throughout the class session.
Because student feedback from warm-ups and exit slips were discussed
previously under the implementation theme, this section primarily focuses on student
feedback elicited from formative questioning. Observational data showed that in every
participant’s classroom, students predominantly did not raise their hands to volunteer
answers to teachers’ questions. Participants rarely called on students; students were only
chosen to answer a formative question when no one responded or, in a few instances,
when a student was not paying attention in class. Data showed that the norm of allowing
students to give answers to teacher formative questions without first being selected had
several consequences on student feedback. First, wait time was affected. When students
who knew the answer stated it aloud, there was virtually no wait time for other students
to process information. Duckor (2014) also found wait time, which was important to
allow students the opportunity to think about questions and to formulate their answers,
was lacking in classrooms. Secondly, many of the same students called out the answers
throughout the class sessions. On average, four to six students answered all the formative
questions in each class. This finding corresponds to studies conducted by Helf (2015)
and Wiliam and Leahy (2015) who found that only a small number of students offer most
of the answers in class. Wiliam (2014) stated that studies showed only 25% of students
regularly answered questions in class. My study data showed that an average of 23% of
each class answered all the formative questions; the average class size was 22 students).
104
Finally, as with the warm-ups and exit slips, the way participants implemented formative
assessment did not give all students an opportunity to provide feedback; consequently,
Data from observations showed that participants did not use instructional
techniques that allowed all students to show their understanding when they implemented
formative assessment. Johnson et al. (2013) found that teachers in effective urban
schools consistently used strategies that allowed them to collect feedback from all
students, not just a few. In this study, however, participants used strategies that only
allowed them to collect feedback from a few students. For example, when participants
asked a formative question to the class, they waited until a student called out an answer.
A few students stating answers aloud resulted in little student understanding being
checked throughout the class session. This finding aligns with Haydon, Marsicano, and
Scott’s (2013) research which found, “Teachers typically ask students to volunteer and
answer questions one at a time. As a result, most instruction involves a few students
verbally responding to teacher questions” (p. 182). Furthermore, the same few students
answered questions throughout the class sessions while the rest of the class remained
passive learners. These students often volunteered most of the answers in their other
classes as well. For example, Participant 2 and 10 shared many of the same students in
their classes. The few students who answered most of the questions in Participant 4’s
class were the same few who answered most of the questions in Participant 10’s class.
Research shows that techniques such as hand-raising with random calling, whiteboards,
clickers, hand signals, and response cards all give students opportunities to show their
105
learning during formative assessment (Messenger et al., 2017; Nagro et al., 2016).
Participants did not implement any of these whole group elicitation techniques during
observations, did not mention them during the interviews, and did not record them in
their logs. The one exception was Participant 5 who, at one point during the lesson,
asked students for a “thumbs up” if they understood and a “thumbs down” if they did not
understand. Only about 25% of the students participated (mostly “thumbs up”), so this
understanding.
When teachers are not effectively using techniques to give all students an
interpret a few right answers as an indication that all students understand. This incorrect
lesson on probability. Participant 2 asked the whole class, “What is the chance of getting
one head when you flip a coin?” About half the students answered aloud, “50%” and the
participant said, “Good.” The participant then inquired, “What about getting two heads
in a row?” One student eventually called out the answer, and he was correct. Participant
2 replied, “Good,” and asked the class, “What about three heads in a row?” The same
student answered after a few seconds, and the participant said, “Great!” Then he gave
students a question on the board, “What is the chance of getting four right in a row if you
guessed on a multiple-choice test?” One student immediately asked for help, and the
participant spent several minutes assisting him. Seven out of seventeen students were not
working on the question: they were talking to another student, just sitting passively, or
106
were on their cell phones. After approximately 3 minutes, the participant asked, “Who
can give me the answer to this?” and two students said the answer aloud. The participant
then inquired, “So far are we getting it?” Two kids said “yes”; the rest of the class
remained silent. The participant moved on to the next part of the lesson. I recorded
Another common formative assessment practice was for participants to ask the
Participant 4, after explaining about the stock market crash before the Depression, asked,
“Any questions on this?” One student said “no” aloud and Participant 4 continued the
next part of the lesson. On another occasion, two students gave an answer to “What
makes a healthy economy?” Participant 4 then inquired, “Any questions on this? Make
sense?” The class was silent. Then Participant 4 said “good” and displayed the exit slip
Data showed that there were inconsistencies between what participants said they
believed during the interviews—that all students should be checked for understanding—
and their current practices. One possible reason for the discrepancy could be that
participants did not know or have not tried techniques that support eliciting a greater
number of student responses during formative assessment. Gathering feedback about all
student understanding is extremely important because it results in the teacher being able
to make better decisions about how to adjust instruction to help bridge the gap between
what students currently understand and the targeted learning goals (Chan et al., 2014;
teachers have collected student feedback, they must interpret what the feedback indicates
about student learning and then make appropriate instructional adjustments to promote
further learning (Duckor, 2014). During the interviews, all 10 participants reported that
they adjusted their instruction when feedback from a formative assessment strategy
showed students did not understand a concept. The main way participants said they
adjusted their instruction was by stopping the current lesson to address the misunderstood
content. All participants consistently used one or more of these words to explain what
they did after collecting feedback from a formative assessment: “reteach,” “rephrase,”
“re-explain,” “go over again,” or “repeat.” Seven participants specifically stated that they
gave more examples, used different wording, provided analogies, or used a different
mode of instruction (i.e., showing a video or asking another student to explain). Half of
the participants (2, 4, 5, 9, and 10) mentioned using student feedback to plan or to adjust
their future lessons. Participant 4 stated, “When I see a lot of kids get the same things
wrong, I will put it in the bell-ringer the next day or put into the next assignment.”
Participants 2 and 9 said that they often created a new assignment the next day that
“Theoretically, I would change what I do the next day based on feedback, but I don’t
think I am there yet. I do not use them [formative assessment] for that [modifying the
Observational data were consistent with the interview data. All participants
instructional adjustments during class, and Participants 3 and 7 used the least. The
address student learning needs. The most common way participants adjusted their
Participants modified instruction primarily for the whole class, not smaller groups of
students or individuals. This finding agrees with Andersson and Palm (2017) who also
found that the most common way teachers modified instruction was to the entire group.
The participants in this study addressed student misunderstandings with the whole class
by implementing four main instructional strategies: (a) giving verbal explanations using
different words, examples, or analogies; (b) using manipulatives or visuals; (c) using
guided instruction to explicitly help students understand a concept or process; and (d)
six classes participants decided to adjust their instruction by modeling additional practice
the board while students either watched or followed along on their papers. While
completing a practice problem, participants often discussed their thought processes and
asked several low-level formative questions. Many students did not pay attention while
109
participants explained how to work through a problem, and after participants completed
an example, students often copied the work. In many classes, usually at the students’
requests, participants completed several extra practice problems in this manner. Student
confusion was often evident during independent work time, even after the teacher
understanding. In most classes, students relied on the participant to do the work and then
passively copied, an approach that does not support increased student understanding. The
exception was Participant 8 who requested that students work on practice problems on
their own to assess what they could accomplish without teacher help. Participant 8 then
walked around and checked several students’ papers before giving the answers to the
practice.
Data from logs gave a deeper understanding of how participants used student
feedback from formative assessment to adjust instruction. Log data showed participants
implemented 63 formative assessment tasks, averaging two per participant per class.
result of their formative assessment. They recorded that feedback from the formative
assessment indicated that students understood the lesson concepts. Conversely, there
were 32 instances where participants indicated that feedback showed students did not
understand the lesson concepts, and, therefore, they adjusted their instruction. Eight
students. Participants made these adjustments during the same class session they gave
incorporating student feedback into the next day’s lesson or warm-up. Participants 1, 8,
and 9 acknowledged that they planned to give students extra time to learn the concepts
during the unit but did not give any specifics as to when or how they would do so.
Overall findings indicated that participants used student feedback from formative
assessment regularly to immediately adjust instruction for the whole class to address
lessons, and rarely, if ever, used the feedback to make adjustments for small groups of
students.
practice problem, they either did not recheck student understanding, or they checked
observations, participants often asked, “Do you understand now?” or “Do you get what I
almost every case, the student responded “yes.” Only one student (in Participant 10’s
class) answered, “No, not really.” Participant 5 stated during the interview that when she
asks for a show of hands about who understands, a few students will participate. When
she asks who does not understand, usually no one will raise their hand. Fisher and Frey
(2014a) also found this to be true in their studies. They uncovered that when teachers ask
students if they understand, students often say yes or nothing at all because they are too
111
embarrassed to say they do not understand; they also might not even realize they do not
understand.
understand?” to the whole class after they taught a concept. In every instance, there was
anywhere from one to a few students who would shout “yes” immediately. The
participants replied “good” or “okay” and continued with the lesson. Participant 6
commented on the process, “I have trouble figuring out if anyone needs more help. I may
ask ‘Do we need to go back over this?’ and I will hear a few say ‘no’ and the rest say
nothing.” She continued by adding, “I might let them go into independent practice too
fast because I feel that everyone understands when they really don’t.” Likewise,
Participants 2, 4, and 7 admitted that they often do not know if students understand a
Knowledge and beliefs about formative assessment was another theme that
emerged from the study and included two subcategories: understanding formative
formative assessment use with students, and benefits of formative assessment. The theme
and their perceptions of its use showed what factors affected formative assessment use at
Hammond.
112
Understanding formative assessment. All but Participant 3 gave at least a
similar word in her definition by stating that formative assessment is used “continuously”
during class to assess students. The other participants provided no reference in their
their interviews five participants mentioned that formative assessment was usually
implemented daily. The second main component of the formative assessment definition
is that it is used during the learning process as opposed to after learning took place. Only
three participants gave indications that they viewed formative assessment as a process to
use while students were learning. Both Participants 2 and 10 used the phrase “in-the-
moment” assessment in their definitions, and Participant 4 said “checking along the
way.” Conversely, assessment given after learning is called summative. Studies from
OECD (2013) showed that teacher confusion about the difference between formative and
determine what students know at the end of a unit/chapter/semester; in other words, after
learning took place. The participants provided examples such as a test, final exam, or
final project. Therefore, there was no indication of any confusion about the two types of
assessment, so this does not seem to be a hindering factor in their formative assessment
implementation. On the contrary, several studies have shown that teachers often do not
113
understand the difference between formative and summative assessment (Clark, 2012a),
The third part of the definition is that formative assessment is used to gather
formative assessment was used to “check” students; however, answers varied about what
they thought teachers were checking. For example, Participant 1 thought formative
assessment was used to check if students were “improving and getting better,” Participant
assessment was used to check if students were “ready for a test,” and Participant 9
thought it was a way to check if students “retained” what they learned. Only Participant
understanding.”
used to adjust teaching. Miranda and Hermann (2015) declared that formative
assessment needs to be used to modify instruction to help students meet learning goals.
OECD’s (2013) research which showed that teachers often do not recognize formative
for student understanding, but knowledge of strategies was limited. There are many
different formative assessment strategies teachers can use to check for student
Only five different formative assessment strategies were commonly stated, even when
participants were reminded that their examples were not limited to ones they used. The
participants), warm-ups (eight participants), quizzes (eight participants), exit slips (six
participants), and talking to individual students (five participants). These five formative
strategies were limited. When questioned about how satisfied they were with their
participants’ answers included “a good understanding, but feel I could learn more”
(Participant 1), “I could learn more” (Participant 3), “decent knowledge, but I usually use
the same ones [strategies]” (Participant 5), and “I am still learning” (Participant 9).
Participants gave similar answers about their knowledge of using feedback collected from
formative assessment to adjust their instruction: “Knowledge is fair, but I could always
learn more” (Participant 1) and “OK, but open to learning more” (Participant 3).
perceptions about formative assessment can also play an important role in their
understanding of every student every day at least several times throughout the class.
Their answers, however, did not agree with other data collected in this study. Several
participants’ answers exposed a reason why formative assessment beliefs and practices
everybody should be checked; probably every day some kind of check during the hour.
But that’s not reality.” When probed about the latter phrase, Participant 8 added, “Lack
students should be checked, but the problem is that many students will not participate.”
This sentiment, that the lack of student participation during formative assessment tasks
kept teachers from assessing all of their students, was reiterated by all but one participant
formative assessment tasks at Hammond is discussed further in the barriers and supports
All participants believed that regularly using formative assessment to check for
student understanding was beneficial. Participants cited several benefits they perceived
were the result of consistently using formative assessment in the classroom: (a) to know
how well students understood concepts to determine who needed help (nine participants),
(three participants), and (d) to have students monitor their progress toward a learning goal
116
(three participants). Participant 10 added that formative assessment strategies were a
and 5 also mentioned the quick nature of formative assessment later in the interview.
Participant 2 was the only one who stated that a benefit of formative assessment was
better student learning in the classroom. Lastly, only Participant 5 voiced that formative
assessment was beneficial to uncover student understanding prior to a new lesson. Data
from observations and teacher logs showed that using formative assessment to check
student background knowledge before learning a new concept was not commonly used at
Hammond.
The final theme, barriers and supports, gave insight into what circumstances
might hinder or promote teacher formative assessment use to check for student
understanding and to adjust instruction. The theme connected with RQ3. The barrier
component of the theme was divided into two subcategories: barriers to implementing
formative assessment to check for understanding and barriers to using feedback from
included student participation during formative assessment tasks and teacher time.
Barriers to adjusting instruction were lack of feedback about student understanding, time,
and teacher knowledge. The support component of the theme consisted of student
acknowledged that due to low formative assessment participation, “It is hard to know
what the students know and don’t know. The vocal students, I know where they are at.
The rest, not so much.” Likewise, Participant 9 disclosed, “The majority of the class is
not involved [during formative assessment]. So, I don’t really know what is going on
with everyone, and I don’t have the time to walk around to each student and have a
discussion with them.” Most of the participants who mentioned lack of participation also
mentioned the frustration of having the same few students in each class answering
questions. Observational data corroborated this statement; the problem seemed to stem
from students calling out answers without being called upon. Participant 1 stated,
“Sometimes, because the same students will be answering all the time, I feel like students
are really getting it. Then when I check an assignment or something, I realize they
to ask often and get some feedback on how they [students] are understanding. But, like
for whole group questioning, I feel that I am just talking to five kids each day.”
Participants’ comments during the interviews seemed to suggest they felt the problem
with student participation during formative assessment was out of their control. The
118
perceived lack of control was also evident in participants’ body language—much
sideways head shaking and shoulder shrugs while they discussed student participation
problems. Participant 7 said, “You can’t know what a student knows or even have good
questioning in class if half the class just doesn’t care to even participate.” Participant 4
stated that his students are just “sitting there” during formative assessment tasks, and
there is no way for him to know if they understand or not. Similarly, Participant 9
affirmed, “I wish I could do more with formative assessment, but it’s hard to get the
students on board with me.” Several participants remarked that instead of participating
during formative assessment, students are frequently not paying attention. They
mentioned students often have their heads down, are on their cell phones, or are talking to
other students. Observational data confirmed that in most classes these student behaviors
relates to formative assessment, was the most commented on issue; it was mentioned 32
time. Participants stated several different factors that influenced their time implementing
formative assessment, the most frequent being classroom management and behavior
problems. Eight participants stated that much of their time was focused on student
disruptions, and the time spent on classroom management affected how often they chose
spend so much time on student behavior problems that it takes away time to do formative
of saying, ‘You just do it on your own then—I hope you were listening.’” Emmer and
Sabornie (2015) found that student participation and behavior problems are related—the
less student participation there is in class, the more likely students will show off-task
behaviors. Six participants mentioned other time-related barriers that affected their
formative assessment use: (a) curriculum pacing, (b) having to prepare for many different
classes, (c) classroom time management, and (d) being a new teacher to the building.
Participants 6, 7, 8, and 9, who were new at Hammond this school year, each admitted
they were pressed for time. Participant 6 confessed, “I am just so overwhelmed with
everything I need to do with my teaching that I am just trying to stay one day ahead of
everything. . . . But next year I am hoping that I can focus more on formative
assessment.”
tasks was a hindrance. Most participants admitted they did not have time to assess warm-
ups or exit slips for student understanding, which is why they did not collect them daily.
Participant 4 stated, “I don’t want to collect formative assessment every day because to
collect and read all that data, especially more intense answers than a yes or no, take too
much time.” Participants 1 and 4 acknowledged that if they learned strategies that
allowed them to collect formative feedback more quickly and easily, they would use
formative assessment more often. Perrota and Whitelock (2017) found that using
technology for formative assessment can “easily and effectively” help teachers check for
student understanding (p. 131). Three participants felt that technology might help them
120
more quickly implement formative assessment, but there were several obstacles, one
being time. Participant 2 commented, “I don't really use any technology, haven't really
had time to work with that—too busy, but I know there are a lot of ways that tech can be
useful for formative assessments.” Participant 7 also mentioned a lack of time to learn
new technologies that could help them implement formative assessment. Other barriers
about technology to assess student understanding included not knowing what technology
assessment and technology into lessons, and not yet having technology available to them
Participants revealed that the main barrier to using student feedback to adjust instruction
was that they often were still not sure what students did or did not understand; therefore,
they were unsure how to adjust instruction to meet student needs. This answer connected
to low student participation during formative assessment tasks and participants’ lack of
participants cited that another barrier to adjusting instruction during class was time spent
on student disruptions. This response aligned with participants’ reasoning for not
I feel like I have to keep going on with the lesson. I can’t take the time I may
want or the time students need to reteach because many can’t pay attention to
121
what I am saying. Also, the kids that don’t need the reteaching will start to act
out during the downtime and then I can’t get them back.
Two participants mentioned that they often did not know how to properly adjust
instruction to help students meet learning goals. Participant 3 offered, “I don’t always
know how to reteach something or how I could help address what they [students] don’t
such as re-explaining, but a challenge was learning newer ways to help students
using technology that I have read about but haven’t tried.” Miranda and Hermann (2015)
and Wylie and Lyon (2015) also found that teachers struggle with knowing how to make
participants often did not do so in way that helped advance student understanding, such
Study data showed that knowledge about formative assessment was also a barrier
for participants. Participants were only able to partially define formative assessment, and
most admitted that their knowledge of formative assessment to check for student
limited number of formative assessment strategies, and they lacked understanding about
how to gain adequate student feedback needed to make sound instructional adjustments.
teacher beliefs and practices do not align it was often due to lack of knowledge in the
area of practice. Also, the emphasis on the lack of student participation during formative
knowledge about instructional strategies that would allow them to invite all students to
formative assessment, then they would implement formative assessment more often.
Participants also offered that they would increase their formative assessment use if they
had fewer behavior problems in their classroom. Three participants discussed schoolwide
support needed for behavior problems, such as more consequences for disruptive
students; however, most admitted that improving their classroom management practices
would allow them to check for and address student understanding better. Demographic
data showed that four participants had four or fewer years teaching experience and two
were new to teaching high school, so they may still be establishing their classroom
management styles. Nine participants cited that schoolwide initiatives would (and in
some cases have already) cause them to use formative assessment more often. Since the
beginning of the school year, leaders at Hammond requested that teachers use warm-ups
and exit slips regularly in their classrooms. Observational data showed that nine
participants implemented warm-ups and six participants implemented exit slips, and all
participants recorded a warm-up and exit slip at least once in their logs. Participants 3
and 4 said that that administration’s focus on these strategies caused them to incorporate
123
warm-ups in class daily. Participants 2, 9, and 10 mentioned that another benefit of
during formative assessment tasks if all teachers are using them consistently. Participant
9 stated, “If you are the only classroom doing something, then sometimes it’s hard to get
students to do [the formative task]. But if all the teachers are doing it, they are more
willing to do it.”
development or school meetings. Participants said they would like to work with other
teachers to (a) learn new formative assessment strategies, especially ones that they can
give and assess quickly; (b) discuss which strategies are working for other teachers and
share ideas; (c) learn about using technology to support formative assessment; and (d)
create formative assessment tasks for current lessons. All participants also acknowledged
that professional development would improve their formative assessment use. Interview
data showed participants were willing to learn more about this instructional practice.
Brink and Bartz (2017) found that professional development on formative assessment has
Having training helps. I went to a PD one time a few years back about formative
assessment given by a teacher that used it and was passionate about it and realized
Participants felt that learning new formative assessment skills and strategies during
6 added that it was important for presenters to teach research-based strategies during
professional development: “I want tried and true things that people give me that work or
have data that back it up. I want to know if I do something, it works.” Based on study
The purpose of this project study was to examine how teachers use formative
assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction. I analyzed data
from observations, interviews, and teacher logs with the study’s purpose and research
questions in mind. Four themes emerged from the data: implementation, the feedback
cycle, knowledge and beliefs, and barriers and supports. The findings revealed
information about teacher formative assessment practices that align with previous
Findings showed that participants’ perceptions and practices were not fully
aligned. Data showed that participants had a basic knowledge of formative assessment
and perceived many benefits of its regular use. Studies have found that formative
assessment implementation can be affected when teachers do not fully understand what is
meant by formative assessment (Chan et al., 2014; Chappuis, 2015). Similarly, OECD
125
(2103) found that teachers do not successfully implement formative assessment in their
classrooms when they do not understand what makes a task formative. Because teachers
make their own meaning of the words ‘formative assessment,’ their interpretation can
process in which classroom tasks, planned or unplanned, are used regularly during the
that teaching and learning can be modified to address any gaps in learning and to improve
student achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; CCSSO, 2008; Chappuis, 2015; Clark,
2012b; Stiggins & Dufour, 2009). The definition has four main components that are
responses were compared. During the interviews, participants provided several main
strategies that they used to check for student understanding. Participants also stated that
they believed teachers should formatively assess all their students several times
throughout each class session. Even though most participants were observed delivering
at least two formative assessment tasks during a class session, they did not implement the
strategies in a manner that gave all students an opportunity to show their understanding.
Instead of implementing formative assessment to check how well all students understood
learning goals, participants predominately collected feedback from only a few students.
Participants acknowledged that they only collected a limited amount of student feedback;
they felt student participation during formative assessment was a barrier to collecting
126
more responses. Participants also indicated that they needed or wanted to learn more
suggested that participants might benefit from learning formative assessment strategies
that would allow them to consistently check for student understanding and to collect
Clearly written and shared learning targets are essential to the formative
learning targets for their lessons. Stefl-Mabry (2018) recommended that any formative
objective” (p. 55). Additionally, Brookhart and Moss (2014) stated that students are
“flying blind” if only the teacher knows the learning goals; in classrooms where teachers
shared the learning goals with students, the interaction “made all the difference” (p. 28).
Therefore, having clear learning targets is integral to the formative assessment process
because students will know what they are required to learn, and teachers can elicit
feedback that will help determine their level of understanding (Fisher & Frey, 2014a;
The feedback cycle involves teachers using a formative assessment strategy to elicit
feedback about student understanding and then using the student feedback to determine if
adjustments are needed to support student learning. How teachers implement the
formative assessment strategy can determine the amount and quality of student feedback
the teacher collects (Fisher & Frey, 2014a). Once teachers collect feedback about student
127
understanding, they can respond by using the information to make instructional decisions
about how to proceed (Chappuis, 2015). Teachers might find that feedback shows
students understand what is being taught, in which case teachers can continue with the
lesson. If feedback shows students do not understand, then teachers can make the
teachers have adjusted their instruction, they should assess student understanding again
(Fisher & Frey, 2014a). The feedback cycle continues in this manner with each
formative assessment strategy the teacher uses throughout the class session.
interview, and log data showed that three main formative assessment strategies were used
the end of class; and formative questioning used throughout instruction. Data showed,
strategies during class, they either (a) did not collect any feedback about student
do not check how well most of their students understood what was taught during class.
For example, participants did not collect feedback from warm-ups and exit slips to assess
student understanding of the lessons’ learning goals. Participants gave warm-ups with
the intention for students to complete and correct them on their own, not as a tool for
teachers to check for student understanding so that they could make informed
128
instructional adjustments. Likewise, participants did not implement exit slips in a way
that allowed them to check for student understanding. Cornelius (2014) specified that
exit slips were designed for teachers to collect formative feedback at the end of class so
that teachers could quickly review which students understood the learning goals and
which did not. Therefore, during both the warm-up and exit slip tasks, participants
understanding. Without gathering and analyzing student feedback, teachers cannot make
permitted to call out answers after participants asked formative questions to the class.
Allowing students who knew the answer to immediately state it aloud meant most
witnessed during observations, the same few students answered most of the formative
questions throughout the class sessions. Duckor and Holmberg (2017) also found that
teachers typically only gather feedback from a few of their students. Having a small
sample of student understanding in their class does not allow teachers to recognize what
about student understanding from only a few students in class, they may reach incorrect
conclusions about student learning. Duckor (2014) and Wiliam (2017) found that
teachers often incorrectly conclude that if a few students give correct answers, all
students understand. They warned that this assumption can be problematic because it can
questions and the types of questions asked can affect the amount and quality of student
feedback teachers collect. Marshall and Smart (2013) found that the quality of teachers’
formative questions increased when they planned formative questions ahead of time,
allowing for them to better reveal students’ current levels of understanding. However,
my findings show, like Wiliam (2014), that most teachers do not plan their questions to
check for student understanding. Wiliam (2014) warned that if formative questions are
not planned, then teachers may wrongly conclude that “students are on the right track
when, in fact, their understanding of the subject is quite different from what they
[teachers] intend” (p. 17). Planning also allows teachers to be intentional about their
formative questioning. Teachers can determine which concepts during the lesson
students are likely to have misconceptions about and design questions to uncover student
thinking.
The level of questions teachers ask can determine how much information about
student learning they gather. Duckor and Holmberg (2017) asserted that with low-level
questioning “the teacher is working for a predetermined response. A response. One. Not
the wide range of responses formative assessors need in order to make valid, sound
inferences on the current levels of understanding to meet students where they are” (p.
170). Although both low-level and high-level questions are needed to determine student
130
understanding, high-level questions give more insight into student thinking and how
instruction should be adjusted. Findings suggested that hearing correct answers to low-
level formative questions also lead participants to conclude that students understand
concepts. Again, this assumption could result in missed opportunities to address student
assessments.
Findings also showed that there was consistently low student participation during
formative assessment. Participants did not offer all students opportunities to participate
during formative assessment so that students could demonstrate their understanding. The
way teachers implement formative assessment can allow them to elicit a large or a small
amount of student feedback. Johnson et al. (2013) stated that, especially in low-
performing urban schools like Hammond, teachers need to collect feedback from most
& Kelly, 2017, p. 208). Findings, however, showed that participants recognized that
most of their students were not participating during formative assessment. During the
interviews, participants openly expressed frustration about how low student participation
difficult to determine how well the class understood the learning goals. In fact, all but
131
one participant stated that his or her main barrier to the implementation of formative
assessment was that most of the students did not participate, especially during formative
(2014), Fisher and Frey (2014a), and Helf (2015) also found that teachers did not often
provide opportunities for students to respond in class when they attempted to elicit
information about student understanding. Instead, the researchers noted that teachers
relied on the traditional technique of asking a question to the class, having one student
answer, and then giving feedback to that student about his answer. Furthermore, Haydon
et al. (2013) reported that students in low socioeconomic schools, such as Hammond, are
The study findings connected to the problem statement, research questions, and
understanding curricular concepts taught in their classes. Three research questions were
to help leaders make informed decisions to support consistent use of this practice.
Findings linked to the research questions can give leaders insights into how teachers use
formative assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction. Study
132
findings showed that even though participants unanimously believed that all students’
assessment showed that this was not the case. The strategies and techniques participants
used to implement formative assessment only allowed them to elicit feedback from a few
students; participants did not give all students an opportunity to show their understanding
during formative assessment. This finding directly related to RQ1. Overall, teachers
were not implementing formative assessment daily in a way that allowed them to assess
demonstrated several ways that they adjusted their instruction based on student feedback
from formative assessment strategies. If student misunderstanding was not evident, the
participants continued with the lesson. If misunderstandings were evident, data showed
most of the participants stopped instruction, often to reteach or to complete more practice
problems with the whole class. When participants re-explained, they often did so how
they originally explained the content. McGlynn and Kelly (2017) discussed the
“imperative” to reteach in a different way because if students did not understand the first
time, then reteaching in the same way “still won’t make sense to them” (p. 24).
Andersson and Palm (2017) also found that whole group was the most common way that
should attempt to gather formative feedback from every student to properly plan the next
steps in instruction. Participants at Hammond did not elicit or collect formative feedback
from most students; therefore, they would not have the necessary information to make
instruction to reteach a concept, doing so was based on the responses of only a few
students. Fisher and Frey (2014a) advised that student feedback should be collected after
the teacher adjusts instruction to once again determine if students understand the content.
instructional adjustment by asking the whole class a question such as “Does everybody
understand now?” This question was met with either silence or a few students saying
“yes” aloud. The result was participants continuing with the lesson without knowing
most students’ current levels of understanding. Therefore, even though participants used
formative assessment strategies during class and often modified their instruction, they did
understanding and to adjust instruction. Findings showed that several factors influenced
formative assessment feedback cycle, teacher knowledge and beliefs about formative
assessment, and time. Answers connected to RQ3 may explain why participants’ beliefs
134
and practices did not align. Five participants stated that if they could elicit more student
participation during formative assessment tasks, then they would implement formative
would encourage student participation so that participants could collect more feedback
about student understanding. When the participants were probed further about strategies
they used to engage more students during formative assessment tasks, four participants
mentioned they had tried “thumbs up” or using popsicle sticks with names to call on
more students. They stated that these strategies were unsuccessful. The other participant
admitted, “I do not have any idea how to get more students to answer formative
questions. I just feel that until the students start to see the value of participating, there is
nothing I can do.” Data from observations further showed a lack of knowledge of
strategies and skills that would support more student participation during formative
According to Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) formative assessment theory, student learning
how well students are progressing toward a learning goal. Based on the social
development theory, which is closely tied to the formative assessment theory, students
need to be active during the formative assessment process (Vygotsky, 1978). Most
135
participants’ students, however, were not active during formative assessment. For
teachers to target students’ ZPDs, the mental space between what students know and
what they are working toward, they must determine what students currently understand.
Teachers can then adjust instruction to help bridge the gap between what students
currently understand and what students still need to understand (learning goals).
The goal of this study was to examine teachers’ formative assessment use to
check for understanding and to adjust instruction. The results of this study indicated a
assessment strategies that allow more students opportunities to show their understanding,
intentionally collect adequate formative feedback, then they may determine what
instructional adjustments they need to help students meet learning goals, which may
Summary
research tradition, justification for the design, criteria for participant selection, access to
participants, and measures to protect the participants from harm. I included detailed
136
descriptions about the three data collection instruments, how the integrity of the data was
maintained, and the data analysis process and findings. The study research design was a
qualitative case study developed to gather information about how teachers at Hammond
used formative assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction.
The qualitative tradition allowed for thick, rich descriptions needed to understand
participants in this study, and confidentially was maintained. Data from observations,
interviews, and logs provided information about the three research questions. I used open
and axial coding to thoroughly analyze the data and identify four main themes:
implementation, the feedback cycle, knowledge and beliefs, and barriers and supports.
Findings gave insights into the three research questions. Participants checked for
questioning. Participants implemented warm-ups and exit slips with all students,
however, they did not collect student responses to determine levels of understanding.
During formative questioning, the most frequently used formative assessment strategy,
questioning, which only provided them with feedback from a few students. Therefore,
understandings were left unchecked while they were learning new concepts. Without
giving all students opportunities to participate during formative assessment and collecting
adequate student feedback, participants could not determine what students did or did not
implementation practices and their perceived barriers and supports for implementing
formative assessment with more fidelity, I developed a project to address the findings.
Section 3 describes the project developed from study findings. The project is a
professional development that may help teachers consistently use formative assessment to
strategies that may help them collect feedback about all students’ understanding. I
provided a rationale for the project choice and a review of literature supporting the
project genre and content. Details of the project are included such as an outline of goals,
discussed possible social change implications resulting from the project along with the
Introduction
from a limited number of students, which affected their ability to make informed
decisions about how to adjust instruction. Teachers were not offering all students an
opportunity to show if they understood what was being taught. Not collecting feedback
from most students resulted in participants making instructional adjustments based on the
understanding of a few students. Fisher and Frey (2014a) and Wiliam (2013) asserted
that teachers should use strategies that allow them to formatively assess all students so
that they can obtain an accurate view of the current levels of understanding of their class
Data showed that student participation during formative assessment was a barrier
to participants’ formative assessment use. Participants felt that the lack of student
assessment. Research shows that when teachers incorporate instructional strategies that
participation increases (Duckor, 2014; Tincani & Twyman, 2016). The result can be
greater student feedback during formative assessment. Participants also reported that
of professional development sessions that may help teachers elicit responses from a
139
greater number of students during formative assessment tasks. The section includes the
goals of the project, the rationale for selecting professional development as the project
genre, a review of the literature about the genre and content of the project, and a detailed
Project Goals
instruction so that students can meet learning goals. The overarching goal of this project
is to train teachers to use instructional strategies that would elicit more student responses
during formative assessment so teachers can collect more feedback about student
understanding than they currently do. As a result, teachers can make more informed
instructional adjustments to help address gaps in student learning. The overarching goal
is divided into five project goals. Each of the goals derived from the study findings and
Project Goal 1
Teachers will write and align clear student learning goals using state and district
standards for each lesson 100% of the time. Even though several participants posted or
stated learning goals for the lessons I observed, the goals were often not specific and not
aligned with their formative assessment. Determining what goals students need to reach
progress toward a defined goal. Teachers can detect any misunderstandings from student
140
responses and decide what instructional adjustments should be made to help bridge the
gap between what students currently understand and the established learning goals.
Project Goal 2
Teachers will collect formative assessment feedback from most of their students
using whole student response OTR strategies at least once every 20 to 30 minutes at the
rate of three questions per minute for non-written responses and one question per minute
for written responses. Data showed that participants collected limited information about
student understanding during formative assessment such as warm-ups, exit slips, and
what instructional adjustments, if any, students need to meet learning goals. Participants
conveyed that they would like to learn more about and improve upon how they
Project Goal 3
Teachers will adjust their instruction daily as needed using student feedback
collected during formative assessment to help students meet learning goals. Data showed
that participants based their instructional adjustments on a few students’ responses. The
most common adjustments were made during class after formative questions. Feedback
from warm-ups and exit slips rarely resulted in instructional adjustments. To bridge the
gap between current student understanding and the intended learning goals, teachers must
141
collect and use student feedback from formative assessment to make instructional
Rationale
School leaders expressed a concern over the lack of consistent use of formative
opportunities for teachers to learn instructional strategies and techniques that may help
them elicit responses from more students during formative assessment. Therefore,
teachers may determine their students’ current levels of understanding so they can adjust
teachers will receive ongoing support from their involvement in PLCs, which were
that PLC should be added to the recipe of teacher development” (p. 652). Collaborative
support during PLCs may help sustain what teachers learned in the professional
development sessions.
Participant interview data showed that professional development was a logical choice to
address formative assessment use at Hammond. Most participants indicated that they felt
they needed to learn more and to improve their practice through professional
development. Van den Bergh, Ros, and Beijaard (2015) stated that teacher willingness to
acquire new skills was a solid foundation for professional development learning.
Participants thought that collaborating with other colleagues about formative assessment
142
practices would be a valuable method by which they could be supported. Participants
desired time to plan, develop, and share formative assessment implementation ideas and
targeted areas of skills about an instructional practice (Desimone & Garet, 2015; Hill,
Beisiegel, & Jacob, 2013) such as specific instructional strategies to help collect
successful at bringing about school-wide change when it focuses on teacher practices like
(2017) found that professional development, such as workshops and trainings, can be a
valuable way to improve teacher practice. Training in targeted strategies enables teachers
(2014) declared that there is “no doubt in the literature regarding the potential of
developing their existing skills and in acquiring new ones” (p. 321). Researchers have
implementation (Black, 2015; Chroinín & Cosgrave, 2013). In fact, studies have shown
that professional learning opportunities had “the highest impact” on the quality of
teachers’ formative assessment practices and were “crucial” for consistent formative
assessment implementation (Heitink et al., 2016, p. 58). Many studies have shown that
143
professional development has a positive effect on teachers’ formative assessment
practices (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Cisterna & Gotwals, 2018; Furtak et al., 2016;
Kintz, Lane, Gotwals, & Cisterna, 2015; Randel, Apthorp, Beesley, Clark, & Wang,
2016). Therefore, because findings of this study showed that teachers at Hammond
would benefit from learning strategies and techniques that would allow them to
elicit responses from a larger number of students, creating professional development that
focuses on these skills would be logical. In addition, professional development has been
found to be effective in urban schools, like Hammond, where there is often high teacher
mobility. The information and materials from professional development can easily be
made available or repeated for new or incoming teachers (Desimone & Garet, 2015).
The strategies, which have been shown to be successful with a wide range of students
(Cakiroglu, 2014; Clarke, Haydon, Bauer, & Epperly, 2016; Haydon et al., 2013; Kira et
al., 2013; Messenger et al., 2017), can be immediately implemented into any classroom at
any grade level. Very few resources are needed for this project, making it a very cost-
I selected PLCs to help sustain the new learning from professional development.
During traditional workshops, teachers may learn new skills and knowledge, but they
need time and support to transfer what they learned into practice (Oweis, 2014). Many
144
studies have shown that professional development training is often coupled with some
form of PLC to support and sustain learning (Kennedy, 2016). PLCs have been fully
established at Hammond for about a decade; therefore, teachers have experience working
with this type of professional learning format. The existing PLC structure may provide
ongoing support for teachers throughout the school year. Alternatively, school leaders
can allow time during staff meetings for teachers to meet in groups and to use the PLC
The literature review I conducted related to the proposed project that was based
on my analysis of data collected at Hammond. I used the literature review and study
findings to create professional development for teachers at Hammond High School. The
techniques targeted to help them elicit responses from more students during formative
assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction. I found research
Complete, Taylor and Francis Online, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. Search terms
resources predominately published within the past 5 years to provide current research for
Professional Development
development was an appropriate choice to help teachers develop and expand upon
instructional strategies that may help support their formative assessment use.
continuing education programs, and action research (Brown & Militello, 2016). For any
current school needs and should consider the school’s student population
(p. 103). Coherence means that professional development goals, content, and
146
activities, are consistent with school priorities, school leader and student
needs, and teacher knowledge and beliefs (Desimone & Garet, 2015). In fact,
Desimone and Garet (2015) affirmed that teachers were more likely to
school leaders’ initiatives. For many years, school leaders at Hammond have
formative assessment as one of the strategies to support this goal. Also, this
address existing needs of the participants (Bayar, 2014; Stewart, 2014) and
focus on issues relevant to their classroom work (Patton, Parker, & Tannehill,
2015). Teachers also want to learn instructional skills that they can
current teacher practices so content can be prepared to bridge the gap between
learning goals.
should start with clear goals in mind so that the learning activities can have
development must begin with openly defined learning goals that are
outcomes are anticipated as a result of the staff training (Guskey, 2014). With
know the purpose of what they are learning and what is expected of them
support more consistent formative assessment use. One task identified in the
reliable sources so time and resources are not wasted on unproven practices.
presenters should model new strategies so that teachers can visualize what
how teachers learn. Research shows that active participation is essential for
are engaged in the instructional practices that they are learning (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017); they are not just sitting and listening passively to
lectures (Bayar, 2014). Matherson and Windle (2017) found that teachers
Smylie, 2014). Teachers need time to learn and practice new strategies if they
strategies into their current practices and to become comfortable with their use
implement what they learned (Learning Forward, 2013; Patton et al., 2015).
reflect on what they learned (Smylie, 2014). Reflection, which helps transfer
quality PD creates space for teachers to share ideas and collaborate in their
insights, and ideas as they make meaning of new learning (Lauer et al., 2014).
Studies have also shown that teachers need to collaborate about shared
2014). Engaging openly with colleagues can help teachers build trust which
may encourage them to take greater risks when trying new instructional
practices (Patton et al., 2015). Collaboration should continue after the initial
practices. PLCs can give teachers the time needed to continue collaborating
learning (Earley & Porritt, 2014; Patton et al., 2015). Learning Forward
implementation” (p. 56). The time period should be more than one day or a
p. 27). Lauer et al. (2014) advised that continued support during the
sustainability. They found that providing time for regular short meetings
teachers, realizing that change takes time, want learning opportunities that are
151
supported long-term (Bayar, 2014; Matherson & Windle, 2017). Although the
and topic complexity” (Lauer et al., 2014, p. 216), for new learning to have a
lasting effect in the classroom, it should have steady support over the course
of at least a year (Kennedy, 2016; Matherson & Windle, 2017). The time
school leaders provide for teachers to engage with what they learned in
well with adult learning theory introduced by Knowles (1973). Knowles’ five underlying
assumptions, outlined by Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2007), were that adult
learners (a) want the reasons for the new learning and why it is important to them
(connects to effective professional development components one, two, and three above);
(b) are self-driven and put forth effort when given focused goals (component three); (c)
want opportunities to apply new knowledge (component four and six); (d) bring past
knowledge and a variety of experiences that should be used in their learning (components
five and six); and (e) are generally self-directed and active learners (components five and
six). Aligning adult learning theory with effective professional development practices
may help foster the adoption of new instructional practices that support consistent
and results for all students occurring within learning communities committed to
Forward, 2017, para.1). Matherson and Windle (2017) reported that PLCs can provide
Continued learning happens best when several components are present in the PLCs: (a)
clear mission and shared values about what the group wants to accomplish, (b) genuine
dialogue that is open and constructive and respects everyone’s thoughts, (c) collective
reflection that promotes individual growth, (d) atmosphere of trust that supports
implementation of new ideas, and (e) supportive leadership that allocates time for
teachers to meet (Dehdary, 2017). Stewart (2014) affirmed that learning is significantly
influenced when teachers are supported by peers in PLCs. Learning communities allow
teachers the time to work collaboratively so that they can monitor, reflect, and improve
teachers learn with and from one another (Stewart, 2014). Oweis (2014) suggested that
to transfer new knowledge and skills from professional learning, such as traditional
workshops or trainings, teachers need a community where educators can support one
another with their implementation, give and receive feedback, discuss problems, and
work on solutions together. For my project, I plan to utilize the existing PLC structure at
153
Hammond for ongoing teacher collaboration once the initial professional development
Two areas of focus in the PLCs will be reflection on and feedback about
Stewart, 2014). They are also important elements in adult learning theory (Knowles,
1973), and together they help teachers constructively transfer learning from professional
Engaging in reflection and feedback “support transfer of knowledge and skills into
practice as part of ongoing professional learning” (MDE, 2011, p. 12). Reflection and
feedback will not only be used to help strengthen how teachers implement strategies to
give all students an opportunity to respond to formative assessment, but it may also help
teachers to adjust their instruction based on the student feedback they collect.
Although reflection and feedback work together, each has its own role to advance
learning. For teachers, reflection means “consciously thinking about the strengths and
weaknesses of one’s practices (Van den Bergh et al., 2015, p. 143). Reflection allows
teachers to “acknowledge what works; what does not; and what additional resources,
training, and practices are needed”; however, time for teacher reflection is often missing
from sustained support (Brown & Militello, 2016, p. 706). Patton et al. (2015)
recommended teachers have time to discuss their reflections on and experiences with new
learning regularly after the initial professional development. PLCs give teachers the time
needed to reflect, and more importantly, the time to discuss reflections with other
154
colleagues. Hadar and Brody (2016) found that the benefits of group reflection in PLCs
are threefold: Reflection (a) enhances and deepens understanding; (b) invites
commitment, and action in others. Therefore, reflection not only enhances individual
leaning, but it also inspires group learning (Hadar & Brody, 2016). Unfortunately,
teachers are rarely given time to reflect on, implement, and discuss new learning; the
2014).
As teachers implement new strategies to help them collect more student feedback,
they will have opportunities to make more informed instructional adjustments based on
the results. During PLCs, teachers can reflect not only on their experiences with
collecting student feedback, but also on what instructional adjustments, if any, they made
because of the student feedback they collected. Reflection about adjusting instruction is
especially important because studies have shown that teachers often struggle to find
(Miranda & Hermann, 2015; Wood et al., 2016; Wylie & Lyon, 2015). Even though
after collecting limited student feedback, there was room for improvement. Furthermore,
participants acknowledged that they wanted to improve on how they adjusted instruction
after they gathered student feedback, especially if more students had an opportunity to
respond. PLCs can present opportunities for teachers and their colleagues to reflect on
and discuss ways that they can successfully adjust instruction to help students meet
155
learning goals. Instructional adjustments that can improve student understanding require
a deep knowledge of content as well as identifying how to best bridge the gap between
current levels and desired levels of student understanding (Chappuis, 2015). Stewart
(2014) found PLCs that are organized by similar academic disciplines allow for deeper
learning and support. The PLCs at Hammond were divided by content areas, so the
groups consisted of colleagues who shared subject-area knowledge. Teachers in the same
content area can provide critical dialogue about ways to adjust instruction to support
specific concepts when formative assessment feedback shows students are struggling to
understand a lesson.
increased student learning regularly offered time for teachers to receive feedback about
their practices and to make necessary improvements. If teachers do not receive feedback
about how they implement new practices learned during professional development, then
they may either become frustrated because they do not know if they are implementing
them correctly, or teachers may abandon what they learned (Brown & Militello, 2016).
among colleagues. Stewart (2014) advised that teachers in a PLC should feel
comfortable with one another so they can give and receive honest, constructive feedback.
Hadar and Brody (2016) discussed essential elements that need to be established in PLCs
for teachers to feel safe enough to share thoughts with one another: (a) equal status and
Open conversations about thoughts and experiences while implementing new learning
can help teachers build on one another’s ideas which “deepens and enriches both thinking
PLCs can help support and advance what teachers learned during the professional
teachers should aim to increase the quality and quantity of their OTR strategies
throughout the school year. Reflection, monitoring, and feedback during PLCs will play
an important role in this improvement. Haydon et al. (2012) developed a series of steps
teachers can use to self-monitor their OTR implementation. The steps are as follows:
frequency counter app, or video recording) their OTR use for a period of 3-5
days.
4. Use the data collected to graph and review rates of OTR use.
Teachers can discuss and reflected upon the process during PLCs. Haydon et al. (2012)
also suggested a hybrid approach to the above process. Teachers can (a) self-monitor to
157
collect baseline data, (b) share the data during PLCs, (c) receive feedback about how to
increase the quantity or quality of OTRs, (d) develop a plan with actionable goals, and (e)
discuss future data to help modify the plan. Therefore, “teachers may be both consultant
and consultee for each other, as they work to improve their practice. This symbiotic
relationship would provide both teachers with opportunities for reflective and
use during PLCs that incorporates this hybrid approach and is based on the
“Opportunities to Respond Action Plan” tool Haydon et al. (2012) developed (see
Appendix A for PLC Action Plan to Increase OTRs During Formative Assessment). This
tool will support the valuable data collection, reflection, and feedback process necessary
to help teachers consistently implement formative assessment with all their students.
Study findings showed that teachers collected limited feedback about student
professional development sessions will consist of instructional strategies that would help
formative assessment in a manner that gives all students an opportunity to show their
understanding can provide teachers with more feedback about student understanding than
they currently obtain. With more student feedback available, teachers can determine how
understanding (Chan et al., 2014). One of the most common strategies teachers use to
gather information about student understanding is formative questioning (Fisher & Frey,
2014a; Helf, 2015). Most teachers use the IRE model during questioning: the teacher
asks a formative question, a student or several students answer, and the teacher gives
feedback on whether the answer was correct or incorrect (Duckor, 2014; Pearsall, 2018;
Wiliam, 2014). The cycle continues throughout the class session (Wiliam, 2104). Helf
(2015) found that one of two scenarios often transpire during the IRE model, either the
teacher finds that only a small number of the same students volunteer to answer the
questions, or no students answer the questions. In the latter case, the teacher usually
gives hints, uses prompts, rephrases the question, or provides the answer himself. Even if
the teacher calls on students at random, he will only be assessing a couple of students at a
time (Duckor & Holmberg, 2017; Wiliam, 2014). As Duckor and Holmberg (2017)
highlighted, teachers cannot learn much about student understanding during formative
assessment if, for example, only 10% of the students respond. Obviously, in both
scenarios, the teacher cannot fully assess the level of understanding of the class if most
students are not demonstrating what they know. Teachers may think they have
determined what their students know through formative assessment, but the inadequate
feedback about most students’ understandings does not supply enough information to
truly determine where a class stands in relation to the learning goals (Wiliam, 2014).
Furthermore, correct answers from the few students who respond can be problematic.
159
Duckor (2014) found that if teachers receive the answer they are looking for, they usually
conclude that all students understand. Likewise, Kira et al. (2013) disclosed that teachers
believed all of their students would respond similarly to the few students who gave
instructional decisions about how to proceed with the lesson. Therefore, the IRE method
only provides limited student feedback that teachers can use to adjust instruction to help
students meet learning goals. As Duckor and Holmberg (2017) stated, for teachers to
make sound instructional decisions during class, they need adequate feedback about all
their students’ understandings. Therefore, teachers need to elicit responses from the
whole group. Whole group response “means that all students in the class have frequent
whole-class participation” (Tincani & Twyman, 2016, p. 13). It is only when whole
group response strategies are used to increase class participation, such as during
formative questioning, that teachers can make informed conclusions about what their
Wiliam (2018) discussed another problem with the IRE model affects gathering
optional. Many students choose not to participate; instead, they often sit and wait for
other students to answer. When students view participation during formative assessment
as optional, they often become unnoticed in class, meaning these “students’ thinking goes
undetected—for hours, days, or even weeks” (Duckor & Holmberg, 2017, p. 170).
Consequently, teachers may discover from a summative assessment, such as a unit test,
160
that students did not fully understand the content. By then, it is often too late to address
misunderstandings and to reteach concepts. Pearson (2018) advised that if teachers want
to “build a sustainable and effective assessment practice . . . then moving away from an
IRE model of response is crucial” (p. 30). Instead, teachers need to implement formative
assessment in a manner that gives the whole class an opportunity to show their
understanding. Eliciting feedback from the whole class during formative assessment can
help teachers develop a sense of what their students understand. Whole group response
strategies allow teachers to check for understanding and collect feedback from all
students at the same time (Nagro et al., 2016). Studies conducted by Johnson et al.
(2013) showed that collecting feedback from all students was especially beneficial for
urban schools, like Hammond. Effective teachers in their study repeatedly used whole
For teachers to collect more feedback during formative assessment, they need
more students to participate; therefore, teachers must change their formative assessment
implementation to include whole group strategies. Many studies have shown that when
teachers consistently used whole group response strategies in class to elicit student
feedback, student participation increased (Cakiroglu; 2014; Duckor & Holmberg, 2017;
Haydon et al., 2013; Heritage & Heritage, 2013; Messenger et al., 2017; Tincani &
Twyman, 2016). Cakiroglu (2014) found student engagement increased when teachers
used whole group response strategies in class; students were more inclined to answer
questions and to show their thinking. He found that the mean percentage of student
responses during traditional hand-raising was 27.5, and during the use of a whole group
161
response strategy, the mean percentage was 91.45. Likewise, Messenger et al. (2017)
discovered that the whole class response format resulted in greater student participation
than the IRE method. Another significant finding of their study was that implementing
whole group response was a “feasible strategy that could be implemented with high
fidelity” (p. 182). Haydon et al. (2013) also compared whole group response to
individual response and found that whole group response strategies, such as choral
responding and response cards, not only increased student participation, but the
other studies also found increased participation and student achievement resulted from
teachers regularly implementing whole group response strategies that gave students
2015). Furthermore, studies have shown that whole group response strategies are
confidence, and off-task behaviors (Messenger et al., 2017). Often these students do not
and responding frequently to the participating students while inactive students are
regularly overlooked (Kira et al., 2013; Wiliam, 2018). Special education students
(Clarke et al., 2016), low-achieving students, and general education students all benefit
when their teachers implement whole group response strategies during formative
assessment (Cakiroglu, 2014). Using an instructional strategy that allows a wide range of
162
students to participate more fully in formative assessment is especially important in
during formative assessment, they encourage all students to show their understanding.
Whole group strategies that enable all students to simultaneously participate more fully
(OTR) (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015). OTR works as an instructional strategy that
can help teachers quickly reveal what students understand during formative assessment
and if they should make any immediate instructional adjustments to facilitate learning
(Menzies, Lane, & Oakes, 2017). Although there is never any guarantee that all students
will participate during formative assessment, OTR strategies have been shown to increase
participate (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015; Menzies et al., 2017). With OTR,
students have frequent opportunities during class to provide teachers with feedback about
their understanding (Duckor & Holmberg, 2017; Messenger et al., 2017). Therefore,
teachers can collect more feedback about student understanding more frequently
(Andersson & Palm, 2017). OTR strategies are a type of Active Response Strategy
(ARS) (Tincani & Twyman, 2016) and are considered a Total Participation Technique
OTR strategies. There are a wide range of OTR strategies teachers can use
during whole group instruction to give all students an opportunity to respond during
formative assessment so that teachers can gather feedback to make informed instructional
163
adjustments These instructional strategies are useful ways for teachers to engage students
instruction, and to monitor student progress over time (Nagro et al., 2016). Also
noteworthy is that OTR strategies allow teachers to provide instant feedback to students
about their responses. This teacher feedback is an important part of the formative
encourages participation, and discourages off-task and disruptive behaviors” (Tincani &
methods of responding (Duckor & Holmberg, 2017; Messenger et al., 2017; Nagro et al.,
2016). There is a wide variety of strategies and techniques under each category, many of
which can be tailored to the teacher’s instructional style or to their classroom setting.
Verbal OTR strategies. The main verbal whole group OTR strategy is choral
response. Choral response “involves asking all students the same questions, giving wait
time, and then giving them a signal that cues them to provide a response in unison”
(Whitney, Cooper, & Lingo, 2017, p. 3). An example is to ask all students, “What is a
negative ion called?”, waiting for five seconds, and giving students a cue to answer
together aloud. Students could also respond in unison to a question with a choice of
answers such as “acute, right, or obtuse” when shown pictures of angles. Menzies et al.
164
(2017) advised that having a cue for students to simultaneously answer was essential.
They suggested teachers use a gesture such as raising an arm, say a verbal cue word,
display a visual such as the word “answer” on a screen, or a combination of these. Center
execute after receiving student feedback from choral response: (a) If only a few incorrect
answers are heard, teachers can restate the answer with the question (for example, “Yes, a
negative ion is called an anion.”) and then present the same question again later for
reinforcement; or (b) If many students answer incorrectly, then the teacher should state
the question with a brief explanation of the correct answer, immediately ask the same
question again using choral response, and then present the question again shortly after.
Tincani and Twyman (2016) also recommended that after a choral response, teachers ask
individual students to repeat the answer. This move can confirm understanding and
Gestural OTR strategies. Gestural strategies “allow students to use their hands to
understanding of the lesson content” (Whitney et al., 2017, p. 3). These OTR strategies
can give fast feedback to teachers during instruction to verify if students understand
concepts they are being taught (Nagro et al., 2016). They also prevent students from
becoming discouraged when they do not understand content during a lesson because
teachers are addressing their misunderstandings regularly (Nagro et al., 2016). One
gestural strategy example is when a teacher asks students to use their fingers to show a
and five fingers signify total understanding (Whitney et al., 2017). Teachers can also
have students use their fingers to give more detail about their understanding. For
example, one finger up means “I do not understand,” two fingers up show “I think I get
it,” three fingers up mean “I understand,” and four fingers up represent “I understand and
could explain it to someone” (SRI, 2017). Teachers can determine what they want each
gesture to indicate and post it in the classroom while students learn how to use this
strategy. Gestures can also be used for simple responses such as one finger means true
and two fingers mean false. Teachers can also post formative questions on the board with
possible answers numbered underneath; students indicate which answer they believe is
correct by a show of fingers (Whitney et al., 2017). Another common gestural response
strategy is “thumbs up, thumbs down.” Students show a “thumbs up” to indicate “Yes,”
“I do not understand” (Fisher & Frey, 2014a). Students can also use a sideways thumb to
show they are not sure of the answer. To have answers be more private, teachers can
recommend that students close their eyes during the gesture or hold their gesture closely
in front of them.
Written OTR strategies. There are several types of written OTRs teachers can
implement during formative assessment. Pre-printed response cards are reusable signs
2015). They, like verbal and gestural OTRs, give all students an opportunity to respond
simultaneously during formative assessment so that teachers can collect feedback about
166
student understanding (Tincani & Twyman, 2016). Pre-printed response cards are often
flash-card sized, reusable, answer response options for multiple-choice (A, B, C, D), true
and false, agree and disagree, or yes and no questions (Cakiroglu, 2014; Helf, 2015;
Nagro et al., 2016). The cards can include other types of responses such as vocabulary
words, foreign language words, pictures, numbers, or symbols. When using pre-printed
response cards, the teacher asks a formative question to the whole class, uses wait time to
allow students time to think and select the appropriate card, and then cues students to
display their cards (Cornelius et al., 2016). Teachers can then quickly scan the cards to
check for student understanding. At any time, teachers can make instructional decisions
about whether to move on with the lesson, to reteach the whole class, or to work with
small groups or individual students (Helf, 2015; Menzies et al., 2017). For example,
assess student understanding of the content they are learning. She reads aloud the
question and the four answer options. Students are instructed to choose their answer by
selecting “A,” “B,” “C,” or “D” from the pre-printed response cards at their desks. After
10 seconds, she says, “Cards up,” and the students display their answers. The teacher
quickly scans the class and notices about one-third of the students holding up “D” instead
of the correct answer, “B.” She reveals the correct answer and decides to review the
misunderstood concept again, this time using an analogy. The teacher can then ask
students to display a gestural strategy to quickly show if they understand the concept
better. Teachers can also have students use write-on response cards, which are
whiteboards or laminated sheets of paper, to display their answers (Tincani & Twyman,
167
2016). Having students write on a whiteboard provides more flexibility in the answers.
Although this write-on tool is a good way to gain more insight into student understanding
during formative assessment, Duckor (2014) advised teachers to only have students write
numbers, letters, or a few word responses on whiteboards so that teachers can quickly
Another type of response card is called a processing card. Processing cards are
green, red, and yellow cards students display to show their level of understanding
(Himmele & Himmele, 2017). During formative questioning, students can hold up a
green card to indicated that they understand, yellow card to show that they somewhat
understand, and a red card to indicate they do not understand. Students can also show
their cards during a lesson to determine if they are “good and ready to move on” (green
card), “okay and almost ready to move” (yellow card), or “confused and not ready to
move on” (red card). Teachers can ask probing questions to students with red or yellow
cards to decide how to adjust instruction to close any gaps in learning (Duckor, 2014).
The cards can also be used during independent practice. Students can display the
appropriate color on their desks to show their understanding as they work. Teachers can
scan the class to quickly determine who needs more support. If students place a green
card up, it shows “I get it, I can do this by myself,” a yellow card indicates “I sort of get
it, but would like more help,” and a red card means “I am stuck, I need help.” The
teacher can work in small groups with students displaying red or yellow cards or pair
used for convergent or low-level formative questions (Nagro et al., 2016). However,
teachers can also ask high-level clarifying follow-up questions after receiving students’
initial responses. Low-level questions are important to the learning process, but follow-
up questions can reveal student thinking at a deeper level (Jiang, 2014). These questions
may help teachers understand why students answered the way they did. As Duckor and
Holmberg (2017) and Wiliam (2018) advised, teachers must seek more than correct
responses; they need to learn about student understanding, see patterns in student
thinking, and uncover misconceptions. When teachers collect more feedback about
student understanding, they can make more informed decisions about “what to teach,
reteach, or even preteach” (Duckor, 2014, p. 31). Himmele and Himmele (2017)
recommended that teachers regularly ask students to explain their thinking during any
whole group OTR strategies by choosing students with correct or incorrect answers to
expand on or defend their responses. One way that Pearsall (2018) suggested teachers
learn more about student understanding is by simply asking them, “What is your
reasoning behind that answer?” or “Why did you choose that answer?”
If teachers want to delve deeper into student understanding, they can have
responses are often used when asking students open-ended or divergent formative
questions (Nagro et al., 2016). Teachers must keep in mind that formative questions
should be written in a way that give them feedback about students conceptual
understanding (Fisher & Frey, 2014a). The questions should be crafted in advance to
169
help uncover student thinking and common misconceptions (Himmele & Himmele,
2017). There is a multitude of extended response OTRs that teachers can use during
formative assessment including one sentence summaries, quick writes, 3-2-1, sentence
stems, and learning logs. Descriptions of these strategies, along with others, can be found
Teachers often use written OTR strategies for students to show what they learned
after a lesson at the end of class. Teachers should use the feedback they collect from
students to inform their next lesson (Cornelius, 2014). Whatever OTR strategy teachers
use, they need to review the responses to understand what their students know or do not
know. One technique to review student understanding is to skim over the answers and
place them into two piles: students who understand the concept and students who do not
understand (Dixon & Worrel, 2016). Teachers can then decide whether they will need to
reteach a concept to the whole class, to place students into groups based on their levels of
strategy that helps teachers collect formative feedback from all students. Technological
OTRs can be implemented with devices (e.g., clickers, cell phones, computers, and
tablets) software programs, websites, or apps. Many of these technologies are response
student understanding so they can give immediate feedback and make real-time
instructional adjustments (Shirley & Irving, 2015). For example, a teacher displays a
170
slide-show presentation with embedded formative assessment questions (using a software
program or web application) during the lesson. Students use their devices to
simultaneously answer the questions. The teacher receives immediate feedback from
student answers and, based on the student feedback, decides if the content needs to be
retaught. Some examples of CCT include Kahoot, QuizletLive, Poll Everywhere, Google
Forms, Socrates, Mentimeter, and clickers. Clickers are popular educational hand-held
devices also known as student response systems; they are a quick, efficient way to collect
honest feedback from students and to encourage participation (Fuller & Dawson, 2017).
Landrum (2013) found 83.1% of the students surveyed in his study commented that they
participated more when teachers used clickers to assess their understanding. Likewise,
Shirley and Irving (2015) found that CCT increased student engagement, which gave the
opportunity to evaluate their own learning from the immediate feedback teachers
provided. Student responses from CCT, such as clickers, can be displayed anonymously
on a screen in the classroom, giving teachers immediate data (Fisher & Frey, 2014a).
They can then make quick and informed instructional decisions regarding next steps for
learning. For example, after students respond to a multiple-choice question with their
CCT devices, the teacher sees on the screen that there is a variety of answers. She can
then choose several ways to address the student misunderstanding. For instance, the
teacher can (a) acknowledge the confusion, give the correct answer, and explain why the
answer is correct; (b) show why one of the answers was incorrect and allow students to
choose again, or (c) give students time to talk with a partner and choose again. Software
171
programs associated with CCT devices and other online student response applications
also have “inbuilt reporting functionality” that can “provide teachers with quantitative
and qualitative information about learning, at the classroom level as well as the individual
level, which can be used to inform teaching” (Perrotta & Whitelock, 2017, p. 133).
valuable and less time-consuming way teachers can check whole group understanding
(Fisher & Frey, 2014a; Perrotta & Whitelock, 2017). Technology can provide teachers
with more accurate feedback about student understanding than traditional methods
prepare a kit to help students quickly retrieve any OTR tools they need in class. These
kits can be kept in plastic containers, bags, pocket folders, manila envelopes, or zippered
pouches. The recommended items for kits include a laminated piece of light colored
construction paper for a simple whiteboard; a dry-erase pen; a felt square for an eraser; a
index cards; pre-printed or blank half-sheets for extended writing responses (e.g., quick-
writes, sentence stems, short answer responses); and green, yellow, and red processing
cards. Teachers can place kits in a central location for students to pick up when
prompted, leave kits at student desks, pass out kits when needed, or have students keep
their students, they should set up expectations. Firstly, students should be taught how to
gather, use, and put away OTR materials to reduce downtime and increase efficiency
(Helf, 2015). After teachers review routines and procedures, the following elements,
adapted from Menzies et al. (2017), can help them to smoothly implement the new OTR
1. The purpose of OTRs is to show the teacher what you understand about the
lesson; teachers will use the information to learn what areas you need help.
3. Students must remain in their seats and respond only using the given OTR
strategy.
7. The focus is on understanding why an answer is correct, not just having the
correct answer.
Menzies et al. (2017) suggested practicing an OTR strategy with a few fun and easy
questions so that students can become accustomed to the process. They also cautioned
teachers to not become frustrated when first implementing OTRs, as students may need
follow when implementing an OTR strategy. These seven steps can be used with any
173
type of OTR strategy. Teachers at Hammond will learn about OTR strategies and
2. Prepare a list of questions or prompts related to the content and aligned with
3. Determine how you will deliver your questions (e.g., PowerPoint, paper,
orally, board)
4. Determine how you want the students to respond to your formative questions
clickers)
5. Let students know you are conducting a whole group response activity where
purpose of the formative assessment until students are comfortable with the
process.
6. Conduct the lesson, asking the planned formative questions when appropriate
bridge the gap between what students currently understand and the intended
learning goals. If student answers are correct, move on with the lesson; if
should begin to increase the number of OTRs they use. Researchers have conducted
studies that determined what OTR rates yield the best results (Messenger et al., 2017;
Whitney et al., 2015; Wiliam, 2014). In other words, they established how often teachers
should use OTR strategies during class and how many questions they should give to
students during each OTR session. Wiliam (2014) suggested that teachers implement
whole student response strategies at least once every 20 to 30 minutes to “ensure that
their decisions are based on the learning needs of the whole class” (p. 19). Messenger et
al. (2017) recommended that teachers implement OTRs at the rate of three questions per
minute for non-written responses and one question per minute for written responses. This
means during 3 minutes of formative assessment, teachers should invite all students to
respond to nine questions. Whitney et al. (2015), who noticed that teachers from all
content areas and grade levels implemented OTRs at low rates, found it was crucial for
teachers to keep high OTR rates to positively affect student learning. Although high
OTR rates are beneficial, it is still important to allow wait time for students to process
information before asking them to respond. Duckor (2014) recommended using a visual
timer or stopwatch during OTR strategies to ensure wait time is provided. Following the
steps for implementation and striving to increase OTR rates in the classroom will be
Summary
The second literature review focused on the genre and content of the project
(Knowles, 1974), guided my project design. Participants in the study only collected
research has shown that teachers should implement whole group response strategies, such
as OTRs, to gain feedback from all students to progress learning (Duckor & Holmberg,
2017; Haydon et al., 2013; Messenger et al., 2017; Tincani & Twyman, 2016).
Professional development sessions can be successfully used to help teachers learn about
and implement new instructional strategies. Therefore, I focused mainly on OTR training
in this project study’s professional development. Teachers will be taught four main
categories of OTR strategies: verbal, gestural, written, and technological. Teachers will
learn a wide range of strategies they can implement within each category—all shown to
increase student responses. All the strategies encourage student participation by inviting
students to show what they understand during any point of a lesson. So, by implementing
OTR strategies, teachers can provide all students opportunities to respond during
understanding, they can use the information to make more informed decisions about their
instructional adjustments. PLCs offer teachers time for collaboration that can be used to
support and sustain the new learning. Through reflection and feedback, colleagues can
engage in constructive conversations that can strengthen their OTR practices during
The project resulting from the findings of this study consists of three day-long
professional development sessions will provide teachers with instructional strategies that
Collaboration in PLCs, where teachers can reflect and provide feedback on formative
assessment and OTR implementation practices, may help support and sustain the new
learning. The project also addresses the barriers and supports the participants voiced in
In this section, I will review the components needed for implementing the project.
barriers to the project, and possible solutions to the barriers. In this section, I describe the
project implementation and timeline. All supporting documents are found in Appendix A.
I also discuss the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the professional
development, implications of the project, and plan for evaluating the project.
before the start of each new school year. The 3-day instructional sessions planned as part
of this project may be accommodated during this time. PLCs, which have been fully
177
established at Hammond, meet by content department twice a month after school for an
hour and a half. PLCs usually involve collaborative time to review ongoing schoolwide
education, examine student data, or develop lessons. This project will require 30 minutes
of PLC time each meeting for teachers to reflect on and provide feedback about OTR
Hammond, teachers are familiar with the format and actions needed to participate in a
School leaders at Hammond also support the use of research-based and data-
Plan. For the past several years, leaders have encouraged teachers to use formative
presentations, and warm-up and exit slip use. Formative assessment implementation is
assessment. Study data showed participants believed that regular formative assessment is
beneficial, and they also acknowledged a need to learn new strategies to improve their
formative assessment practices. All of these supports help strengthen the possibility of
additional resources. As Nagro et al. (2016) stated, whole group OTR strategies can be
easily implemented in schools with nominal resources. The minimal cost of this project
is sure to be a welcomed element in a school with a limited budget. Resources for the 3-
day professional development sessions include index cards, chart paper, markers, copies
of agendas and other handouts, a projector and screen, and meeting rooms. Resources
needed for teachers to create OTR tools include colored construction paper, lamination,
dry-erase markers, ring clips, and copy paper. These materials are found in the standard
school supplies budget. If costs allow, I recommend school leaders purchasing classroom
sets of mini whiteboards; if costs do not allow, then laminated card stock paper,
disposable plastic plates, or colored paper in a plastic sleeve are economical alternatives.
For teachers who want to use technological OTRs during formative assessment,
classroom sets of clickers are currently available at Hammond as well as class sets of
The third day of the professional development includes two 90-minute technology
training sessions options for teachers. Therefore, two district instructional technology
coaches are needed to present during the time allotted. Before the professional
development sessions, I will need time to meet with the technology coaches to explain
what the training sessions entail. One coach will present about using clickers as an OTR
tool during formative assessment, and the other coach will present about using Google
Forms. Each technology coach will have 60 minutes to demonstrate on how to set up
their designated tool and how the software data collection allows teachers to collect
179
feedback about student understanding. Teachers will have an additional 30 minutes to
apply what they learned to create a formative assessment for their classroom while
Hammond school leaders arrange professional development for all teachers the
week before each school year begins. The schedule allows 4 days for professional
development and a day for classroom preparation. School leaders may need a couple of
days to discuss matters such as classroom procedures, school rules and protocols, new
programs, changes to existing programs, analyzing student data, and school improvement
initiatives. Therefore, only 2 days may be available before school starts for delivering the
professional development sessions outlined in the project. In this case, I would suggest
presenting the first two sessions during those days. The third day’s content, which
divided into smaller segments and discussed during PLCs. Teachers could implement the
technological OTR strategies in their classrooms, reflect on the implementation, and give
feedback about the successes and challenges they encountered. Another possible solution
may be to present the third session during a future professional development day that the
district allocates for its schools (usually one day per marking period). Teachers can
concentrate on implementing the strategies from the first two sessions until they learn the
The 3-day professional development sessions will occur the week before school
starts, which Hammond’s district allocates for teacher professional development. I will
present each session using the PowerPoints and materials found in Appendix A. To
begin Day 1’s session, I will have an opening activity to engage teachers with one
another by asking them to reveal interesting facts about themselves. After introducing
myself, I will share the purpose of the professional development project that I developed
as a result of my study findings. I will establish norms to set expectations for our work
and then communicate the session’s learning targets. Teachers will complete the pre-
to self-evaluate in three categories that are addressed in the project: clear learning targets,
formative assessment practices, and student feedback and adjusting instruction. The
survey, which contains questions about learning goals from all three professional
development sessions, will serve as baseline data for one component of the project
evaluation. I will compare the answers on the pre-assessment survey I give teachers to
answers on the post-assessment survey teachers will take at the end of the school year.
formative assessment and to develop a common understanding of what this practice looks
like in the classroom. During the activity, teachers will individually write what they
believe are the main components of formative assessment. They will then share their
answers with the group and cluster similar ideas together. The teachers will come to a
181
consensus on the key components, construct a group definition, and write their definition
on poster paper. All groups will share their definitions and display their posters.
Together, the teachers and I will craft a final school definition so that all staff will have a
discuss the benefits of using formative assessment regularly with students, to share
research linking consistent formative assessment and student achievement, and to reveal
the need for consistent use of formative assessment in the classroom. I want teachers to
understand the potential this research-based process has to positively affect student
achievement in their school. After the presentation, teachers will have time to discuss
their experiences with formative assessment and chart their challenges, successes, and
teachers will discuss Tomlinson’s (2014) article “The Bridge Between Today’s Lesson
and Tomorrow’s.” I will email teachers a link to this article to read prior to the session.
Using the Four A’s Protocol (SRI, 2017), each group will discuss the article by sharing
what they think the author assumed, what they agreed with in the text, what they want to
argue with in the text, and what parts of the text they want to act upon. I will listen to
conversations and ask questions to advance their thinking. Groups will finish the
discussion by writing three statements that they found notable onto poster paper. They
will share their statements with the whole group and then later hang the posters in the
formative assessment, I will ask them to choose three of the six pictures I display on the
182
screen and to write how the photo is like formative assessment. I will continue to model
formative assessment strategies, such as the picture analogy task, throughout the sessions
activate their thinking on the topic. They will read the 10 statements on the handout,
mark whether they agree or disagree in the “before” column, and then place their
handouts in an envelope in the middle of the table. I will then present about learning
targets: what they are, why they are needed, and their connection to formative
assessment. Teachers will have an opportunity to reflect on their current learning target
use by writing examples of their learning targets and answering a series of questions such
as (a) Are your learning targets developed from content standards? (b) Are they focused
or broad? (c) Can you evaluate whether or not a student reaches the target? (d) Are they
clear to students or vague and confusing? (e) Do you regularly check that all your
Next, I will explain the basic structure of a clear learning target by using
Tomlinson’s (1999) KUD learning goal model that asks teachers what they expect
students to know, understand, and do. The learning targets will be based on the “know”
and “do” of the model, while the “understand” is the overall key idea or generalization of
the unit. Action verbs are needed to determine what students should know and do. To
engage teachers’ thinking, I will have them participate in an ABC Brainstorm activity.
Each teacher will receive a handout that has the letters of the alphabet listed with a space
183
after each letter. They must think of action verbs associated with what they want students
to know and be able to do that begin with each letter. For example, “A” could be analyze
and “B” could be build. At the end of 5 minutes, teachers will circle five main verbs they
regularly use in their learning targets. I will distribute The Learning Target Verbs Based
on Level of Complexity handout, constructed from the new Bloom’s taxonomy levels
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), as a resource for teachers. They should aim to create a
few learning targets at the knowledge level (the “know” in the KUD) and progressively
develop more complex learning targets for students to achieve. In addition to containing
an action or measurable verb, clear learning targets should be specific, concrete, and
learning targets, I will display 10 learning targets and ask them to determine which ones
are well-written. After working individually, teachers will compare their answers with a
partner and debate any differences. I will then review the answers with the group.
Besides writing clear learning targets, teachers should share each day’s learning
targets so that students understand what teachers expect them to know or do as a result of
the lesson. Therefore, I will discuss research about the importance of communicating
learning targets to students. Teachers will watch a short video clip, with source
permission, of a teacher communicating the learning target with students in his class and
reinforcing the learning target throughout the lesson. Teachers will then share ideas
about how they currently communicate learning targets with their students, if they do so,
on their Learning Target Anticipation Guide, labeled “after,” to show their new
understanding of clear learning targets. I will use a gestural OTR strategy to formatively
assess teachers on their learning. Next, teachers will learn a four-step process to writing
clear learning targets from standards: (a) determine the standards you will address in the
lesson, (b) determine what you want students to understand, (c) determine what you want
students to do, and (d) determine what you want students to know. During each step, I
practice writing clear learning targets from standards by presenting a set of standards and
having them work as a group to complete the Learning Target Planning Sheet that I
developed to help guide teachers through the process. I will circulate the room and assist
Lastly, I will give teachers time to practice writing clear learning targets for their
classes. They will meet with their PLC groups and develop the first marking period
learning targets for their classes using the Learning Target Planning Sheet. Teachers
should collaborate with colleagues who teach the same classes and ask for feedback from
their PLC group. I will visit groups to examine their work and give feedback. When
PLC groups return, they will briefly share what they accomplished with the whole group.
Day 1’s session will close with a discussion about insights, questions, or lessons learned.
Teachers will complete an exit slip about (a) the importance of clear learning targets to
formative assessment implementation, and (b) a comparison of their previous and current
activate teachers’ thinking about Day 1. Teachers will complete the warm-up task by
creating a graphic organizer. They write the words “formative assessment” in the center
of their paper and draw circles connected to the center that contain facts about what they
learned in yesterday’s session. After 5 minutes, I will use a random name generator app
to display a teacher’s name on the screen. Each teacher chosen will state a fact he wrote,
and if any others have the same fact, they draw an “X” on that circle on their paper. This
technique will require all participants to carefully listen to one another. The activity will
continue for 5 minutes. After, I will review the main feedback from Day 1’s exit slips
about learning targets and share how the feedback gave me insights into their
understanding. After reminding the group of our norms, I will then communicate the
(OTR) strategies. To begin, I will display five questions for teachers to read and reflect
upon. Questions include “Are there times when many of your students do not participate
when you ask questions to check for understanding? Do you ever have students who you
have no idea what they understand—often for long periods of time? Have you heard right
answers from a few students and felt like everyone was “getting it” only to find out from
a quiz or test they did not understand? Do you often have the same students answer all
the questions and wish you could “hear” from other students? Do you wish that you could
get more students to participate during formative questioning during instruction? These
questions were designed to stimulate teachers’ thinking about their practice and to create
186
interest about today’s session. Teachers will show, by number of fingers, how many
“yes” answers they had to the questions. I will discuss how research has shown that
teachers who use formative assessment often only assess a limited number of students.
Teachers will be asked to turn to a partner and have a conversation about what percentage
of time they collect feedback about all students’ understanding. They will also discuss
reasons they do not collet feedback from all students more often. The reflection activity,
research, and partner discussion will create buy-in for the day’s topic.
and give an overview of research linking OTR use and increased participation during
formative assessment. Teachers will learn about the main types of OTRs, starting with
verbal and gestural. I will discuss how to use verbal and gestural OTRs during formative
assessment and model strategies with the group. We will agree upon a schoolwide Likert
scale for the fist-to-five gestural strategy (such as one finger means “I do not
between classrooms. Teachers can individually create signs with the guidelines to hang
on in their classroom or possibly a staff member will volunteer to create the signs.
response cards: examples of what they look like, what they are used for, and how to
implement them in the classroom. I will follow the same format for presenting about
whiteboards. I allocated time for teachers to create a whiteboard and a set of response
cards. They will use these OTR tools for responding to formative assessment questions
(as I model implementation ideas) and in the role-playing activity during the second half
187
of the session. As I teach a mini science lesson, teachers will have an opportunity to see
My presentation will continue with extended response, the third type of written
OTR strategy. Extended response OTRs require all students to individually write an
often given as exit slips at the end of the lesson. I will discuss how the wide variety of
strategies that can be used as extended responses may help teachers gain deeper insight
into student understanding. Teachers will also be reminded that they should collect or
review responses to formative assessment tasks so they can use the feedback to adjust
instruction. Because many extend responses are often given as exit slips, and study data
showed teachers did not collect exit slips, I will ask teachers to reflect about two
questions: “What do you usually do with the feedback on the exit slips after you have
students complete them?” and “Is there anything else you could do that would help you
use the feedback to make better instructional adjustments?” I will offer several strategies,
misunderstandings, starting the next day with a warm-up addressing the concept, and
differentiating lessons. At this time, I will distribute the Written OTRs Extended
Response handout and give teachers time to review the list of strategies and discuss with
their group which OTRs they find useful. Teachers will be asked to develop three
extended response OTR tasks for specific lessons during the first marking period using
their Learning Target Planning Sheet from Day 1 or to create a set of three generic
extended response handouts they can use with any lesson. I will also ask teachers to
188
record on index cards any additional extended response strategies they have successfully
used and share them with the whole group after we reconvene.
For the final activity before the lunch break, the group will watch four video clips
of teachers using OTR strategies in the classroom. They will write their observations and
instructed to watch each of the video clips on the screen and complete two observation
questions. After the four videos, I will use an online group generator app to assign
teachers into groups of three. Teachers will discuss the videos with their group while I
After the lunch break, I will present about how to begin implementing formative
assessment OTRs with students. I will explain the seven-step process of incorporating an
OTR strategy (McGlynn & Kelly, 2017) into a lesson and how to adjust instruction based
on the formative assessment results. Teachers will also learn how to establish student
expectations for using OTRs. I will also discuss OTR implementation rates and what
To give teachers time to transfer the OTR strategies they learned into practice, I
will have them teach a sample lesson using their new skills. They will meet with their
PLC groups where they will collectively create an eight-minute lesson on a topic they
teach during the first marking period. The group must use the standards to develop clear
learning targets, create an engaging mini-lesson, plan formative questions to check for
student understanding, and incorporate at least three different OTR strategies that they
learned. While working, I will visit PLC groups to provide constructive feedback to help
189
strengthen their formative assessment and OTR practices. After 55 minutes, the whole
group will reconvene, and each PLC will present their mini-lesson to colleagues who will
play the role of students. I expect, after being in both the teacher and student roles, that
teachers will develop a greater understanding of how they can implement OTRs into
practice. After the group presentations, I will discuss creating OTR kits and managing
OTR materials for easy distribution in the classroom. The session will close with a brief
conversation about the PLC OTR lesson planning sessions and an extended response exit
slip where teachers write three sentences using the phrase, “I used to think . . . but now I
know.”
I will begin Day 3 by sharing statements from Day 2’s exit slips as a review of
what participants learned in the previous session. Teachers will then complete a warm-up
activity using an online tool called Survey Monkey so I can discover the digital formative
assessment tools with which they are familiar. Feedback from the survey will be
projected on a screen and displayed anonymously. The instant results will help me
decide which technological OTR tools I will demonstrate later in the session. After
technological OTRs, their benefits, and how they can be used to formatively assess
students. Teachers will be presented with sample results of student feedback and asked,
“What could the data be telling the teacher?” and “What are some instructional
adjustments the teacher could make to help students understand the correct answer?”
during technological OTRs, I will ask teachers to share classroom management ideas for
190
using technology in their classroom. I will show two videos of teachers using clickers
Teachers will turn to a partner and discuss how the OTR was used to give all students an
opportunity to respond during formative assessment and to share ideas they have for OTR
implementation in their classrooms. Next, I will offer teachers two choices for a breakout
session where they can learn a technological OTR to quickly assess student
understanding: Option A—clickers and Option B—Google Forms. Teachers will need to
bring their laptops and Learning Target Planning Sheets from Day 1 to the session they
OTR would be most beneficial for them to learn. Both 90-minute sessions will be
presented by district technology coaches. The sessions will include a step-by-step set-up
feedback data, and an opportunity for teachers to create a formative assessment that they
When groups reconvene from the break-out sessions, I will share several other
technological OTR tools that can be used during formative assessment such as Kahoot,
Mentimeter, Quizlet Live, Padlet, Socrative, Quizziz, and Plickers. Depending on the
results of the technology warm-up survey at the beginning of the session, I may omit
tools in which most teachers are familiar. Teachers will have an opportunity to use the
digital OTR tools while I demonstrate how each can be embedded into formative
assessment. After teachers have seen each how each of the technology tools can be used
in the classroom, I will give them time to work independently exploring these and other
191
technological OTRs. Each person will be given a Technological OTRs to Check for
formative assessment. Teachers will have time to visit the websites, read about the
features, practice using the applications, and plan ideas of how to incorporate the tools in
After the lunch break, there will be several questions displayed asking teachers to
include: Do you give warm-ups regularly and purposefully to check for student
understanding? Do you walk around the room and check student answers while they
work on the warm-up task? Do you use warm-ups to gather feedback from all students or
only a few? Do you use the information you receive from warm-ups to inform your
instruction? These questions will prepare teachers for the Think-Pair-Share (Lyman,
1981) Implementation activity. Individually, teachers will think about possible ways they
could implement verbal, gestural, written, or technological OTR strategies during warm-
ups in their classroom for the coming year. My goal is for teachers to consider how they
could incorporate OTRs into their current warm-up practices so they will intentionally
collect more feedback from students to make better instructional adjustments. Teachers
will also reflect on past experiences using any of the OTRs strategies discussed in the
sessions. They will find a partner by matching the symbols written on the back of their
handouts. Once together, partners will discuss their answers and then (a) write three
statements they would like to share from their discussion that their colleagues may find
helpful, and (b) name a possible challenge of implementing a specific OTR strategy and
192
suggest some possible solutions. Partners will have an opportunity to share their
statements and solutions with the whole group. My goal is for teachers to learn from
each other’s experiences and to problem-solve implementation challenges they may face.
strategy that will help teachers to further uncover student understanding. I will explain
how teachers should use formative questioning during OTR strategies to elicit additional
ask students while implementing OTRs, using questioning techniques after hearing OTR
responses, and balancing low- and high-level questions. By asking more intentional
questions during OTR strategies, teachers can reveal whether students have a surface-
level or a deep understanding of the content. Also, using probing questions after an OTR
strategy can further uncover student thinking and misconceptions. I will model how to
use probing questions to gain more feedback about student understanding by using
response cards.
(2018), which explains how to become more effective at questioning. Each teacher will
be assigned a number on their handout, and those with like numbers will form a group.
Together, groups will use the Final Word protocol (Expeditionary Learning, 2013) to
discuss what they read. After the reading activity, I will give teachers a formative
assessment about information in the article by using clickers to demonstrate how quickly
this tool can be used to check for understanding. Next, teachers will pair with a colleague
and discuss two questions: How well do you feel you incorporate effective questioning
193
during formative assessment? What questioning strategies do you plan to integrate into
During the last segment of Day 3’s session, I will have teachers participate in the
Pair-Share-Move activity where they reflect on five of their most valuable learnings from
the three professional development sessions. They will write each answer on separate
index cards. To begin the activity, teachers will move around the room as music plays,
shaking hands or giving “high-fives.” When the music stops, they will pair with the
closest person. Each partner will choose two of their index cards and take turns
discussing what they wrote; they will give the two cards they read to their partner. When
the music starts, everyone will move around the room again. The process will repeat for
several rounds.
Teachers, after having time to reflect on what they learned, will receive the
Teacher Formative Assessment/OTR Commitment Form. They will write a personal plan
for using learning targets, implementing formative assessment OTRs, and increasing
questioning during and after OTRs so they can gather more feedback about student
understanding. I will collect the plans and make copies for school leaders, department
PLC facilitators, teachers, and myself. Teachers will reflect on these plans periodically
throughout the year to determine their progress. Lastly, I will explain the next steps for
professional development, which is supporting the new learning in PLC groups. For 30
minutes twice a month in their PLCs throughout the school year, teachers will discuss
formative assessment and OTR strategies, set goals, reflect on implementation, exchange
constructive feedback, and observe their colleagues. Day 3’s session will conclude with
194
an online professional development survey using Google Forms. The feedback from the
sessions as beneficial to their instructional practice so that I can strengthen any future
sessions.
includes sustained support by using Hammond’s existing PLC structure. The suggested
PLC agenda and all PLC resources are found in Appendix A. The agenda shows a year-
long schedule for meetings and was developed to provide an ongoing dialogue about the
formative assessment practices teachers learned during the 3-day sessions. PLCs
currently meet for 90 minutes twice a month, and I am proposing 30 minutes each
in this project study. From September to May, there are 16 possible meeting times,
which results in a total of eight hours of collaboration available for the project. At the
first meeting in September, the PLC facilitator will discuss department goals for
formative assessment OTR use and have materials available for teachers to create
classroom sets of response cards and whiteboards (if needed). At the second September
meeting, teachers will fill out the PLC Formative Assessment Reflection. During this
self-assessment, I will ask teachers: What are a couple of your class learning targets from
the past week? What formative assessment strategies did you use to check for
understanding of those learning targets? What OTR technique(s) was used to elicit
feedback about student understanding during the formative assessment strategy? What
worked well? Were there any problems or concerns? What did student feedback indicate
195
about student understanding? Because adjusting instruction is a critical component of the
formative assessment process, three additional questions will be focused on how teachers
adjust instruction due to the student feedback they collected during a formative
assessment task: What instructional adjustments were made or will be made as a result of
student feedback from the OTRs? What were the outcomes of any instructional
adjustments you made? How do you know (or would you know) if student understanding
improved after you made an instructional adjustment? After a teacher shares his
reflection with the PLC group, the other members will have an opportunity to provide
constructive feedback or give ideas that may help strengthen their colleagues’ formative
assessment practices. The PLC facilitator will keep all reflection sheets and submit them
to the building principal at the end of each semester. School leaders can use the
reflection sheets to provide evidence of PLC support of this project and to evaluate
growth in teacher formative assessment OTR practices throughout the year, which will
Before the October meeting, teachers will be asked to complete the “current level
of performance” section of the PLC Action Plan to Increase OTRs During Formative
Assessment. For this task, teachers will assess the frequency in which they implement an
OTR strategy during class and the rate of their formative assessment questioning during
OTR implementation. At the first October PLC meeting, all teachers will discuss their
current level of performance from their Action Plan with the group. This activity
develops accountability and support among colleagues for transferring the information
they learned in the professional development sessions into practice. Next, teachers will
196
write personal goals for increasing their formative assessment OTR use on the “Plan to
increase OTRs” section of their action plan. Over the next few weeks, everyone will be
expected to execute their action plans. At the second October PLC meeting, teachers will
Formative Assessment” and discuss the content using the Save the Last Word Protocol.
During this meeting, everyone should also comment on how their action plans are
progressing.
At the first meeting in November, teachers will once again complete the PLC
Formative Assessment Reflection and discuss as a group using the protocol of their
choice. For the next part of their Action Plan to Increase OTRs During Formative
Assessment, teachers will need to connect with a colleague who can observe their
classroom and complete the “monitor progress” section. There are rows for 4 days of
observations provided on the action plan sheet, and PLC groups should determine the
minimum number of observations they wish to achieve. At the second PLC meeting in
November, teachers will discuss the results of their action plan observations while the
other members of the group give constructive feedback, share ideas, and provide
encouragement.
In December, the PLC groups will revisit the Teacher Formative Assessment
OTR Commitments completed during the last professional development session and
discuss how well they are progressing on department and individual formative
assessment OTR goals. Teachers will then take the Teacher Formative Assessment
Practices Survey mid-year assessment (the middle column) which the facilitator will
197
submit, along with the first semester PLC Formative Assessment OTR Reflections, to the
building principal. PLCs in the second semester, January through May, will follow the
same format as the first semester. I have also recommended five books, which are
written on the PLC agenda, to support formative assessment and OTR use.
contacting the building principal to arrange the days to present the sessions; and securing
two district technology coaches for the 90-minute break-out sessions on Day 3. I will
facilitate the three sessions and be available for consultation during the school year as
needed. The two technology coaches will deliver a presentation about using clickers and
Google Forms as strategies to give all students opportunities to respond during formative
assessment. They will demonstrate how to set-up the software and use the application as
well as help teachers create a formative assessment to use in their class. Department PLC
facilitators will help provide ongoing support during bi-monthly meetings. Their
responsibilities include following the suggested PLC agenda; using the reflection,
feedback, and action plan tools in meetings; promoting constructive conversations about
reflections, action plans, and teacher surveys at the end of each semester. The PLC
facilitators will be expected to observe OTR instruction, provide feedback, and model
strategies; they will also contact me as needed to answer questions. School leaders have
designating time for the project’s initial 3-day professional development sessions,
allocating at least 30 minutes during PLCs for OTR refection and feedback, providing the
necessary resources for teachers to create and use OTR tools, maintaining building wide
initiatives that promote formative assessment use, holding PLC facilitators accountable
for following the agenda and submitting materials, and reviewing data at the middle and
end of the year to determine how to continue supporting consistent formative assessment
use. The commitment of all people to the roles and responsibilities outlined above may
student achievement (Guskey, 2016). As Guskey, Roy, and von Frank (2014)
determined, one source of evaluative evidence will not provide the data necessary to
learning standards of Learning Forward (2013) indicated, “The use of multiple sources of
data offers a balanced and more comprehensive analysis of student, educator, and system
performance than any single type or source of data can” (p. 20). Learning Forward
(2013) suggested that the multiple sources consist of both quantitative and qualitative
The goals of the project include teachers (a) writing clear learning targets to focus their
formative assessment, (b) using OTR strategies during formative assessment to allow a
greater number of students opportunities to respond, and (c) using student feedback from
determine if these three project goals were met. The evaluation plan is comprised of both
quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative component of the evaluation consists
of a teacher survey (see Day 1 section of Appendix A), a student survey, and the PLC
Action Plan to Increase OTRs During Formative Assessment (see PLC section of
Appendix A). The qualitative data used to evaluate the project will be from PLC
Formative Assessment OTR Reflections collected from teachers at the end of each
semester.
A teacher self-assessment survey will be one source of evaluation data for all
three goals. I designed the survey to address the content of the professional development
project. Teachers will complete the pre-assessment section of the Teacher Formative
Assessment Practices Survey (see Day 1 resources in Appendix A) during the first
professional development session. The survey will be given again during the May PLC
to the section “Learning Targets,” questions 1 through 6, will be used to evaluate Goal 1.
Answers to the section “Formative Assessment Practices,” questions 7 through 18, will
be used to evaluate Goal 2. Lastly, answers to the section “Student Feedback and
Adjusting Instruction,” questions 19 through 25, will be used to evaluate Goal 3. The
200
target is that 40% of the teacher self-ratings in the corresponding sections will increase at
least one level from the pre-assessment survey to the post-assessment survey.
I will use results from Hammond’s bi-annual TRIPOD student survey as another
evaluation for Goal 2. TRIPOD is a school improvement company that collects and
reports on student perspectives about teaching and learning. School leaders give all
students the TRIPOD survey at the beginning and end of each school year. Several
questions on the survey directly relate to teachers’ use of formative assessment, such as
whether or not students feel their teachers check to see if they understand concepts during
a lesson. If more teachers are regularly using OTR strategies that give students
increase. The survey answers can be compared over time. For example, in the school
year the project is implemented, fall data from TRIPOD could be compared to spring data
to determine if student perceptions of their teacher’s formative assessment use grew more
favorable. Each question on the TRIPOD survey is assessed as a percentage of the total
students taking the survey, so the quantitative project goal is a 25% increase in the
formative assessment to check for understanding from the fall survey to the spring
survey. Comparisons could also be made from spring of the implementation year to
The PLC Formative Assessment OTR Reflections and PLC Action Plan to
Increase OTRs During Formative Assessment are other sources of evaluation data for
201
Goals 1, 2, and 3. The reflection sheets address learning targets, OTR implementation,
and using student feedback to adjust instruction. The PLC Action Plans can also be used
to determine if teachers are using OTRs with greater frequency, which OTRs are being
implemented, and increases in the rates of OTR use—all of which align with Goal 2. The
project goal is to have 50% of the teachers show an increase in OTR use and
implementation rate by the end of the school year. These sources may be useful to
evaluate not only the transfer of professional development learning into practice, but also
to provide data about how PLCs support and sustain the project goals.
I also recommend two other sources of evaluation. School leaders could use
for all three project goals. Hammond’s district uses the 2007 Danielson Framework for
Teaching for formal teacher evaluations. The framework includes two components
teacher aligns formative assessment with clear instructional outcomes or learning targets,
has well-developed strategies for using formative assessment with students, and uses
used, regularly used, or fully integrated into instruction (Danielson, 2007). The evaluator
also considers if the teacher (a) uses effective questioning to elicit evidence of student
understanding and (b) adjusts instruction during class to address misunderstandings based
evaluation tool are addressed in the project, an increase in teacher proficiency levels in
those areas could be used for project evaluation. A possible goal is a 20% increase in the
when comparing results from the spring of the year of project implementation to spring of
As another evaluation for all three goals, I recommend that Hammond leaders
Leadership Team (ILT) conducts classroom learning walks several times a year to reflect
on topics such as student learning and engagement, teacher instructional strategies and
walks can help school leaders quickly gather a snapshot of teaching and learning in the
classroom (Fisher & Frey, 2014b). The ILT group shares impressions and questions,
determines trends, and suggests future professional development. Fisher and Frey
2. The group spends a short time in the selected classrooms (15 minutes or less).
3. Participants meet again and reflect on what they noticed and what they
insights.
These classroom visits are also used to determine if teachers are implementing skills,
Hammond leaders can use their existing learning walk process to determine if teachers
are implementing new learning from this project. The ILT group can record and reflect
on the components of Goals 1, 2, and 3. The learning walk data can be compared to
instructional support is needed. Data throughout the year should show both an increased
and consistent use of instructional strategies that give all students an opportunity to
presentation, activities, and overall learning. Teachers will take an online Google Form
survey (see Appendix A Day 3 for Professional Development Evaluation) at the end of
the Day 3 session so that I can collect feedback about their professional development
experiences. A paper copy will also be available for participants, if preferred (see
rate 10 statements on a scale of one to five, with five being the highest. The following
helpful.
modeled.
practice.
10. I left with instructional strategies and ideas that I can immediately implement
in my classroom.
At the end of the survey, I provided a space for teachers to add comments or suggestions.
Data from the Google Forms will be sent to my account as a spreadsheet. I will analyze
the data to understand teacher perceptions of the 3-day professional development sessions
and to determine whether the sessions were successfully implemented. Answers could
Data from the evaluation sources discussed in this section should give a
comprehensive picture of how successful the project was at helping teachers implement
strategies that provide opportunities for all students to show their understanding during
formative assessment. Giving students more opportunities to respond may allow teachers
205
to collect more feedback about student understanding so teachers can make informed
instructional adjustments to help students meet learning goals. The results of the project
Local Stakeholders
formative assessment use to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction.
By using strategies that offer more students an opportunity to participate during formative
assessment, teachers can elicit the feedback needed to determine what their students
assessment may no longer mean an opportunity for only a few students to show their
understanding, but rather represent an invitation for all students to share their thinking.
more frequently communicate what they do and do not understand to their teachers.
Teachers, by eliciting more student responses, can then make more informed instructional
adjustments. As a result, students can gain the academic support they need to understand
the content and to meet learning goals. Not meeting district and state learning goals have
state tests, high failure rates in classes, high grade retention, and low graduation rates.
206
Therefore, if school leaders implement the project outlined in this study, then they may
consistent implementation of formative assessment with all students may result in social
Larger Context
throughout the district, state, and country. As research has shown, most teachers collect
limited student feedback during formative assessment, meaning most students are not
assessed throughout the lesson (Duckor & Holmberg, 2017; Fisher & Frey, 2014a;
many schools. When teachers use OTR strategies to encourage more students to
participate during formative assessment, they can make more informed instructional
provide much of the data for which schools are held accountable, the classroom-level
consistently implement formative assessment practices with all students, school leaders
may see an overall increase in student understanding of curricular concepts being taught
207
in classes. The resulting positive social change may be an increase in academic
achievement and a greater number of students who are college and career ready.
Conclusion
Section 3 offered a detailed description of the project that resulted from the
findings of this study. The overall goal of the project is to help teachers consistently
picture of student understanding so that teachers can adjust their instruction to help
students meet learning goals. A review of the literature showed that researchers
instructional strategies and that PLCs can be utilized to support teachers as they transfer
new learning into practice. Therefore, the project consists of a 3-day professional
development where teachers can learn strategies to provide all students an opportunity to
show their understanding during formative assessment. Teachers can then collect the
the professional development sessions, the school’s existing PLC structure will be used to
sustain new learning through collaboration, reflection, and feedback. In this section, I
outlined the proposed implementation and evaluation plan for the project, and all
supporting resources can be found in Appendix A. This section concluded with project
implications at the local level and larger context along with positive social change that
may result.
In Section 4, I will discuss the strengths and limitations of the project and
recommend alternative approaches to the local problem. I will describe what I learned
208
from the research and development of the project, present a reflective analysis of my
personal learning and growth during the process, and reflect on the importance of the
work. I will also review the project implications, applications, and recommendations for
future research.
209
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions
Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative case study project was to examine how teachers
instruction. Data showed that participants elicited a limited number of student responses
strengths and limitations and present alternative ways of addressing the study’s problem.
I will describe what I learned during the research and development processes of the
project as well as reflect on my growth and learning as a scholar, practitioner, and project
developer. This section also includes a discussion about the importance of the project
study, its potential to affect social change, and recommendations for future research.
Project Strengths
The strength of this project is its focus on targeted instructional strategies and
techniques that may help teachers consistently implement formative assessment to check
for student understanding and to adjust instruction. A review of the literature showed
instructional practice to gather feedback from all students about their understanding.
210
More importantly, teachers may incorporate OTR strategies into their existing
instructional practices. Teachers can immediately implement new learning about OTR
strategies to increase the formative assessment feedback they receive from students.
new instructional processes to staff, and when focused on specific strategies, may bring
about school-wide change (Desimone & Garet, 2015). As Kennedy (2016) pointed out,
teachers can consistently and regularly replicate instructional strategies learned during
resources, and the low cost makes implementing OTRs very affordable for schools.
communicated intended learning goals, provided ample opportunities for active learning
ongoing support using existing PLCs. Each professional development session was
thoughtfully crafted with the adult learner in mind: (a) I describe the relevance of the
professional development to teacher work; (b) I provide ample research, citing the
formative questioning; (c) I assess teacher prior knowledge and experiences through
activities that allow them time to discuss and share their ideas and skills; (d) I give
teachers multiple opportunities to apply what they learn about OTRs into practice through
independent work, group work, and role-playing; (e) I model formative assessment and
211
OTR strategies throughout the sessions to give examples of implementation techniques;
(f) I provide time for teachers to understand how the new OTR practices could be
integrated into their current classroom instruction; and (g) I create multiple opportunities
for teachers to be active participants throughout the sessions through group tasks, partner
practicing OTR strategies, playing technological OTR formative assessment games, and
school year will also offer teachers opportunities to collaborate, reflect, and receive
theory may help teachers become knowledgeable about and comfortable with
Project Limitations
There are several limitations of the project study. With a relatively high teacher
turnover rate at Hammond, there are often many new teachers. During data collection
midway through the school year, there were three newly hired teachers; several other
teachers were not hired until after the school year started. Therefore, there may be
teachers on staff who do not receive the 3-day training before school starts. Finding time
to conduct a 3-day, 18-hour, professional development for these teachers is not likely.
New teachers may gain some understanding of OTRs during PLC meetings, but they are
not likely to develop the same level of understanding as the teachers who attended the
sessions—especially because of the highly collaborative and active nature of the sessions.
Session 1: Writing Clear Learning Targets and Verbal and Gestural OTRs; and Session 2:
Written OTRs and Formative Questioning. The two condensed sessions could be taught
a month after school starts and again in late January. I also recommend that mentor
teachers who are assigned to the new teachers support the formative assessment work
learned during the sessions. The mentor teachers can also explain and model
technological OTR strategies that were originally taught during Day 3’s session. The
overall goal of the condensed sessions and mentoring support should be to help new
teachers fully understand and effectively implement a variety of OTR strategies during
formative assessment tasks so they can collect sufficient feedback about student
Another project limitation may be the time allotted for ongoing support in PLCs.
First, PLC groups at Hammond vary in size. Some departmental PLCs have only two or
three teachers, and others may have five or six. Having 30 minutes allocated to deliver
the PLC agenda provided in the project may be feasible for the smaller PLC groups but
rushed in the larger groups. With five teachers in a group, there would only be 6 minutes
available at meetings for each person to write their reflections, share implementation
concerns and successes, and provide feedback to colleagues. Second, it is likely that PLC
meetings may be canceled during the school year due to unforeseen circumstances.
Because the agenda is developed in a manner that builds on the previous session, missing
a meeting will require the PLC facilitators to make decisions about how to effectively
“catch up” and proceed with the agenda activities. Because PLCs will split their time at
213
each meeting between the project’s and the school’s agendas, PLC groups may become
side-tracked and overlook the 30 minutes allocated for the project agenda to discuss their
the first 30 minutes of their time to concentrate on the project’s work (using a timer
would be beneficial), and then transfer their attention to the school agenda.
assessment at Hammond High School. This local problem could have been addressed in
several ways. I could have examined how teachers of different content areas
teachers and new teachers compared. Another way to approach the problem in this study
would have been to investigate how teaching styles informed teacher formative
assessment use. Additionally, I could have designed a mixed methods study. Survey
results may have been collected from participants in addition to data collected from
interviews and observations. The survey would have allowed me to determine teacher
perspectives of their formative assessment use and background knowledge they had about
I could have also applied an alternative approach to address the study results,
which found that teachers collected limited formative assessment feedback about student
understanding. The project could have focused solely on written formative assessment
tasks that might have allowed teachers to collect feedback from a greater number of
students through asking extended response questions. Because most participants in the
214
study implemented warm-ups and exit slips, a project could have been directed at
individual written formative assessment strategies given at the beginning and end of
classes. Extended response OTRs may be beneficial to use as warm-ups and exit slips so
that teachers can gain a deep understanding of student knowledge before and after a
eliminated the need for a comprehensive 3-day professional development and might have
Scholarship
scholarship and the important role it plays in advancing the field of education.
Scholarship reveals a passion for learning that sustains effective educational practices.
methodical manner to produce reliable results that can be shared with peers. Although I
had not considered being a scholarly contributor before this study. Knowing that I can
of the many benefits I have gained from attending Walden. As scholars continue to build
upon or replicate their colleagues’ research, data accumulates and knowledge expands. I
have learned through my project study that it is important for educators to positively
contribute to both their local school community and their profession. Educators must not
only be actively involved in classrooms or local schools, but also be engaged in a larger
context. Fortunately, the Internet has allowed scholarly work to be accessible around the
215
globe, making the impact of scholarship far-reaching. Publishing a project study from
which other colleagues can learn is a thrilling prospect. I realize that my scholarly work
will not end once I complete my project study and receive my degree. Rather, this
doctoral journey was just the beginning of a life-long pursuit to continue to produce
scholarly works that may help improve upon instructional practices and further advance
As I developed the project for this study, I gained important knowledge that
activities, the work should align with school priorities and match school and teacher
needs. Needs can be uncovered by collecting and analyzing data related to a specific
techniques to address any found needs and to help close the gap between current practices
effective professional learning, adult learning theory, needed and existing supports, and
available resources.
teacher resources, I realized the process mirrored that of effective lesson planning. I
began the project by identifying the desired result, which was to help teachers
consistently provide opportunities for all students to respond during formative assessment
so they could make informed instructional adjustments. I then established clear and
216
measurable goals that I communicated in the sessions as learning targets so that teachers
understood the purpose of each day’s work. Next, I planned the instruction and learning
experiences needed to teach the new strategies, skills, and processes. I also used
assessment throughout the sessions to determine prior knowledge, to check for teacher
short-term instructional changes; it fails to address the supports needed for long-term
teachers’ needs as they attempt to transfer new instructional learning into practice. If
Therefore, I added using PLCs to support the formative assessment OTR process taught
in the 3-day sessions. PLC facilitators may promote sustainability of the project study
content by using the allotted PLC time to allow teachers to share and to reflect upon how
they use OTRs so they can collect the necessary information during formative assessment
to make informed instructional adjustments. The support of mentors may also help
promote sustained learning, especially with teachers who may have missed the initial
sessions. As I continue to develop professional learning for educators, I will ensure that
217
it is sustainable by allowing adequate support and ample time for teachers to adopt new
instructional practices.
sessions can help me adjust my professional learning to meet teacher needs. Assessments
can be formal, such as the project’s Evaluation of Formative Assessment Survey and exit
slips, or more informal, such as “thumbs up” gestures or choral responses during the
based on one source. Gathering quantitative and qualitative feedback strengthens the
goals and used to add instructional support, revise professional development, or plan
effective leadership were necessary to bring about change. Strong leaders can promote a
vision and plan that can transform instructional practices and positively affect student
218
outcomes. These leaders have clear goals based on data and research best practices to
support those goals. When goals involve modifying or shifting instructional practices,
leaders can provide targeted professional development. Furthermore, when leaders share
the purpose for meaningful professional development with staff and have evidence to
support a need for change, they create buy-in that encourages teachers to take ownership
incorporated into classroom practices through mutual trust and regular collaboration.
practices and results in schoolwide change requires a leader who is supportive, attentive,
persistent, and motivating (The Wallace Foundation, 2013). Effective leaders know that
for any professional learning to be successfully implemented, they must plan how to
sustain the work. Ongoing support embedded throughout the school year will allow
additional supports are needed. If leaders do not carefully consider all these processes as
I also learned that leaders must engage with parents and community members to
student outcomes. Effective leadership, responsive teachers, and support from parents
and community stakeholders may greatly improve the likelihood that initiatives aimed to
an opportunity to learn and practice skills of effective leadership during my project study
I believe the leadership I display while presenting and supporting the professional
practices into the classroom. I have created a professional development that may support
consistent formative assessment use to provide all students an opportunity to show their
teachers to improve upon their formative assessment practices. I also plan to share my
work with the district school board and present my findings at a Hammond school
meeting open to the public. With more transparency, I may gain additional support to
Though my work at Walden, I have learned much about being a scholar. During
the project study process, I quickly realized how important resilience was for completing
my doctorate. Progress was sometimes slow and considerable patience was needed,
especially during the prospectus stage as I attempted to gain approval for my study.
Being able to clearly articulate the problem, rationale, and significance of the study at
times seemed to be an insurmountable task. However, through persistence and the ability
to accept and act upon constructive feedback from my committee, I was able to overcome
obstacles and to progress through the multiple stages of the project study.
220
Being a scholar has meant consistent growth and reflection. Working through
numerous drafts and revisions helped me to become more precise in my thinking and
writing and to develop my scholarly voice. I also grew in my knowledge and use of
scholarly practices. During my pursuit of professional learning in the past, I was solely
focused on the results of research studies; reading educational articles that discussed
applications of study findings. I rarely read about study methodology, strengths and
all aspects of the research process as well as the need to critically analyze studies. Before
doctorate, I now have experience with the rigor of designing and conducting a study and
have developed a deep appreciation for research. I see myself conducting research in the
doctorate. The work at Walden was demanding and rigorous, as work at this level should
be. I learned to value the struggle and appreciate even the smallest step forward. As a
result, my experiences and growth as a scholar have given me the confidence to pursue
opportunities where I can initiate positive change within the educational community. I
also look forward to conducting additional research and publishing scholarly writings. I
have been an avid learner within my field, constantly seeking ways to improve as a
professional and to stay current on best practices and educational trends. Now I feel the
221
need to not only be a consumer of research but to also be a scholarly contributor from
My deep commitment to quality education for all students and the desire to
confidence to seek new educational prospects. I have held several leadership roles as a
teacher and was given an opportunity to transfer into an administrative position several
courses and project study at Walden, I began to desire a position that would allow me to
affect positive change beyond my classroom. I recently applied for, interviewed, and
project study. For example, during instructional coaching, I collect and analyze data,
research and model best practices, and support teachers as they implement the new
teachers, and examine assessment data. Triangulating data allows me to have evidence-
based conversations with teachers aimed to improve practice. In my new role, I have an
exciting opportunity to help improve student learning in the school. Many of my other
job duties also directly relate to my work on the project study: developing trust with the
staff, using data to uncover areas of focus for school improvement, creating and
222
delivering professional development, supporting and sustaining new learning, monitoring
progress, and evaluating professional learning and student growth. The strong writing
skills, analytical and critical thinking, adaptability, self-reflection, and tenacity I learned
a very current, relevant, and necessary topic to address with educators. If educators
desire to increase student achievement, then teachers must consistently check student
understanding of learning goals so they can quickly address gaps in student learning. In
and using student feedback to adjust instruction. I also promote the use of OTR
strategies, which give all students an opportunity to respond during formative assessment,
to help teachers collect the necessary feedback to make informed instructional decisions.
Without a doubt, all the knowledge, skills, and personal growth from my work at Walden
relevance, engagement, collaboration, and reflection. However, during the research and
practices that I wanted to share with other teachers. I came to appreciate how data are
collected and analyzed to determine an instructional need, and how research must support
practices that address that need. I also learned about adult learning theory and recognize
the necessity to incorporate activities that support adult learners into professional learning
experiences. A few aspects of adult learning that I newly considered were providing
opportunities for teachers to share their experiences, giving tasks where teachers
workshops. Unfortunately, research shows one-time workshops with no support are not
an effective form of professional development and likely will not lead to successful
interviewed for my current position. Many questions the interviewers asked me were
directly related to the work I had recently completed for my project. When I was invited
not help but confidently smile. I began explaining that professional development should
and work at Walden resulted in a job offer. In my new position, I will continue to
conduct research and analyze data so I can create professional learning opportunities for
teachers that may help improve their instructional practices and ultimately increase
student achievement.
Regularly checking all students for their understanding of content learning goals
is crucial to helping students succeed in school. Unfortunately, research has shown that
most students’ understandings are left unchecked (Fisher & Frey, 2014a). My findings
revealed that teachers at Hammond regularly gave students formative assessment tasks
and asked formative questions; however, they only checked the understanding of a few
students. The same students often answered most of the formative questions, while the
other students sat passively. During written formative assessment tasks, such as the
warm-ups and exit slips, many students participated; however, teachers did not collect
student feedback about their understanding. Without the deliberate review of what
students understand, a teacher cannot determine the proper next steps in instruction to
help bridge any learning gaps. The result is teachers realizing that students are
students. With adequate formative feedback, teachers can make informed instructional
225
adjustments so misunderstandings can be addressed, concepts can be re-explained, and
lessons can be modified. Accordingly, students can meet learning goals. The project
instructional strategy that allows teachers to uncover and quickly determine what all their
students do and do not understand. As student learning needs are addressed from regular
checks for understanding in all classrooms, overall student achievement may increase. In
a school that has consistently struggled with student achievement, increased academic
outcomes could result in positive social change. More students may have the credits
needed each year to be promoted to the next grade level; not falling behind in credits may
result in fewer students dropping out and more students graduating. Society suffers when
students do not graduate or are not prepared for a career after graduation because they did
not understand the concepts taught in their classes over the years. In a high-needs school
with a large number of students at or below poverty level, having a solid educational
achievement gap between students at Hammond and students in surrounding private and
award-winning schools. This project has the potential to help more students understand
the concepts being taught in their classes, have the credits necessary to graduate from
high school, and be more prepared for their futures. I hope leaders at the district will
formative assessment with all students, and invite me to share my presentation in their
other schools. I truly believe that the project resulting from my research has the potential
to bring about positive change in the local district and the community.
226
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
assessment in schools across the nation (Box et al., 2015; Fisher & Frey, 2014a; Popham,
2014; Wylie & Lyon, 2015). Study findings revealed that teachers at a local urban school
about student understanding. Most teachers use the IRE model to elicit answers from
students, which only allows one or two students to give responses during formative
questioning. When teachers do not understand what all their students know or do not
know, they make instructional adjustments based on the responses of only a few students.
Consequently, teachers may not address the misunderstandings of most of the class. As a
result, students do not meet district and state learning goals and student achievement
and they implemented instructional strategies that gave all students an opportunity to
respond during formative assessment, then teachers would have a clear picture of student
Future research could enhance the results of this study. Additional research
conducting a similar case study in multiple contexts could add insights into the study
findings. The local school used in the study was a large, urban, high-need, low-
elicit responses from most students; students predominantly sat passively during
A descriptive study could be conducted where teachers who had been trained in
feedback than teachers who had no formal training. The one participant who elicited the
most student feedback shared that he had received training in formative assessment
several years prior which inspired him to use this instructional practice in his classroom.
Also, school data showed that 40% of the participants had been teaching five or less
years. Perhaps a descriptive study could be conducted on the amount and level of
training pre-service teachers receive on formative assessment, and if they were trained, to
what extent were the practices they learned being implemented in their classrooms.
Four participants had stated that student behavior problems and classroom
management inhibited them from implementing formative assessment with more fidelity.
Using OTR strategies in the classroom has been shown to decrease problematic student
behaviors (Haydon et al., 2013; Messenger et al., 2017; Tincani & Twyman, 2016). A
case study could be conducted that would investigate teachers’ perceptions of student
formative assessment. In addition, there are far fewer studies which investigate student
would be to interview or survey students before and after their teacher began regularly
228
implementing formative assessment OTRs to check for understanding. Research
formative assessment tasks, which OTR strategies the students participated in the most
and why, and if students felt they understood concepts better (or received better grades)
implementation had on student achievement at both the classroom and building level.
The research could be conducted with all students or with a subgroup. For example,
there was a high population of students with learning disabilities in the classrooms at the
local school. As a subgroup, these students have struggled academically, thus creating an
achievement gap. Studies have shown that using OTR strategies during formative
classes where the teachers regularly implemented OTR strategies with LD students in
In addition to conducting further studies that add to the body of literature about
formative assessment, I recommend that school leaders consider other components of the
formative assessment process. In this study, I chose to narrow the formative assessment
process by focusing on only two practices—checking for student understanding and using
the feedback to adjust instruction. The formative assessment process, however, also
involves the teacher providing descriptive feedback to students about their work, students
229
using teacher feedback to reflect upon and improve their learning, and students
practices have positive outcomes on student learning (Duckor & Holmberg, 2017;
Wiliam, 2018). I recommend that school leaders research and develop a plan for teachers
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers implemented formative
assessment to check for student understanding and to adjust instruction. Data showed
professional development sessions that focused on formative assessment and the need to
check for student understanding, write and communicate clear learning targets,
implement the four types of OTR strategies to collect formative feedback from all
students, and use questioning techniques to probe student thinking during OTRs. Time in
existing PLCs will be used throughout the school year to provide the ongoing support
Research showed that implementing OTR strategies, which provide all students
with opportunities to respond during formative assessment, helped teachers to collect the
230
necessary feedback about student understanding. With adequate feedback, teachers can
uncover misunderstandings and adjust their instruction to help students meet learning
goals. With more students meeting district and state learning goals in their classes,
student achievement has the potential to increase. The result of increased student
ultimately, earning the credits required to graduate. Overall, students may leave school
with a greater understanding of the topics they studied and be more prepared for their
futures.
231
References
Akpan, J. P., Notar, C. E., & Padgett, S. A. (2012). Formative assessment: A basic
foundation for teaching and learning. National Teacher Education Journal, 5(1),
Ali, I., & Iqbal, H. M. (2013). Effect of formative assessment on students’ achievement
doi:10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.26.05.1622
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). The impact of formative assessment of student
Antoniou, P., & James, M. (2014). Exploring formative assessment in primary schools
013-9188-4
doi:10.1080/10627197.2015.1028619
232
Baird, J., Hopfenbeck, T. N., Newton, P., Stobart, G., & Steen-Utheim, A. (2014). State
of the field review: Assessment and learning. Oxford University Centre for
Bennett, R. E. (2014, November). Preparing for the future: What educational assessment
must do. Teachers College Record, 116, 1-18. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(EJ1040208)
Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V. Looney, A. . . . Wyatt-
learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13,
117-140. doi:10.1177/1478210314566733
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.999643
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
doi:10.1177/003172171009200119
doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Tyler (Ed.), Educational evaluation: New roles, new means. The 68th yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II), 68(2), 26-50. Chicago,
Box, C., Skoog, G., & Dabbs, J. M. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice
doi:10.3102/0002831215587754
Brink, M., & Bartz, D. (2017). Effective use of formative assessment by high school
Brookhart, S.M., & Moss, C. M. (2014). Learning targets on parade. Instruction that
doi:10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0109
234
Bulunuz, N., Bulunuz, M., & Peker, H. (2014). Effects of formative assessment probes
from http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/
Chan, P., Konran, M., Gonzalez, V., Peters, M.T., & Ressa, V. A. (2014). The critical
Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed). Upper Saddle
Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational
doi:10.1080/1046560X.2018.1432227
doi:10.1080/09585176.2014.990911
Clarke, L. S., Haydon, T., Bauer, A., & Epperly, A. C. (2016). Inclusion of students with
doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.966801
Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. (2012). Classroom assessments that inform instruction.
assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and
www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/attributes_of_effective_2008.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Crossouard, B., & Pryor, J. (2012). How theory matters: Formative assessment theory
and practices and their different relations to education. Studies in Philosophy and
Curry, K. A., Mwavita, M., Holter, A., & Harris, E. (2016). Getting assessment right at
doi:10.1007/s11092-015-9226-5
from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org
development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252-
263. doi:10.25115/psye.v7i3.515
59. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Duckor, B., & Holmberg, C. (2017). Mastering formative assessment moves: 7 high
Dunn, K. E., Airola, D. T., Lo, W., & Garrison, M. (2012). What teachers think about
what they can do with data: Development and validation of the data-driven
https://pareonline.net/
238
Earl, L. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student
Earley, P., & Porritt, V. (2014). Evaluating the impact of professional development: the
Emmer, E. T., & Sabornie, E. J. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of classroom management (2nd
http://pareonline.net
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014a). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment
techniques for your classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014b, January). Using teacher learning walks to improve
https://www.nassp.org
Fuller, J. S., & Dawson, K. M. (2017). Student response systems for formative
267-291. doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9371-3
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., and Ross-Gordon, J. (2007). Supervision and instructional
Guskey, T. R. (2016, February). Gauge impact with 5 levels of data. Journal of Staff
Guskey, T. R. (2017). Where do you want to get to? Effective professional learning
Guskey, T.R., Roy, P., & von Frank, V. (2014). Reaching the highest standard in
professional learning: Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press & Learning
Forward.
Hadar, L. L., & Brody, D. L. (2016). Professional development for teacher educators in
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and
27. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
Haydon, T., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Simonsen, B., & Hawkins, R. (2012). Opportunities
Haydon, T., Marsicano, R., & Scott, T. M. (2013). A comparison of choral and individual
doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.682184
Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B.
doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.682184
Helf, S. (2015). Increasing opportunities for student responding: Response cards in the
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) and the Council of Chief State School
https://www.edpolicyinca.org
Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher questioning: The epicenter of instruction
doi:10.1080/08957347.2013.793190
Himmele, P., & Himmele, W. (2017). Total participation techniques: Making every
Curriculum Development.
Hudesman, J., Crosby, S., Flugman, B., Issac, S., Everson, H., & Clay, D. B. (2013).
(EJ1067283)
242
Jiang, Y. (2014). Exploring teacher questioning as a formative assessment strategy.
Johnson, J., Uline, C., & Perez, L. (2013). Teaching practices from America's best urban
schools: A guide for school and classroom leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to
show what they know: The role of scaffolding in assessment tasks. Science
Keeley, P. (2013). Is it melting? Formative assessment for teacher learning. Science and
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2012). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for
doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220
Kintz, T., Lane, J., Gotwals, A., & Cisterna, D. (2015). Professional development at the
Kira, E., Komba, S., Kafanabo, E., & Tilya, F. (2013). Teachers’ questioning techniques
Lauer, P. A., Christopher, D. E., Firpo-Triplett, R., & Buchting, F. (2014). The impact of
doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.776619
https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/school-based-
professional-learning-unit-4-packet.pdf
Learning Forward. (2017). A new vision for professional learning. Retrieved from
https://learningforward.org/docs/default-source/getinvolved/essa/
essanewvisiontoolkit
Linquanti, R. (2014). Supporting formative assessment for deeper learning: A primer for
improve student achievement in the core content areas. Briefing Paper, Southeast
https://ejournals.ph
Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making
doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.667064
doi:10.3102/0013189X12459803
Marshall, J., & Smart, J. (2013). Interactions between classroom discourse, teacher
development? Four emerging themes. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 83(3), 28-
McCollum, K., & Boles, A. (2013). Protocols and templates for literacy strategies.
Mehmood, T., Hussain, T., Khalid, M., & Azam, R. (2012). Impact of formative
http://ijbssnet.com
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
Messenger, M., Common, E., Lane, K., Oakes, W., Menzies, H., Cantwell, E., & Ennis,
doi:10.1177/0198742917712968
246
Michigan Department of Education (MDE). (2011). Professional learning policy:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/PL_Guidance_Public_Comment_FIN
AL_111011_368414_7.pdf
Miranda, R. J., & Hermann, R. S. (2015). Teaching in real time: Integrating continuous
Moss, C. M., Brookhart, S. M., & Long, B. A. (2013). Administrators’ roles in helping
Nagro, S. A., Hooks, S. D., Fraser, D. W., & Cornelius, K. E. (2016). Whole group
doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1146995
247
Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves:
doi:10.1177/0192636515576040
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Pearsall, G. (2018). Fast and effective assessment: How to reduce your workload and
Curriculum Development.
Perrotta, C., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Assessment for learning, In E. Duval, M. Sharples,
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Popham, W. J. (2013). Tough teacher evaluation and formative assessment: Oil and
https://www.ncte.org
Popham, W. J. (2014). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (7th ed.).
doi:10.1002/bs.3830280103
Randel, B., Apthorp, H., Beesley, A. D., Clark, T. F., & Wang, X. (2016). Impacts of
Q-comp/FormativeAssessStrategies.pdf
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Li, M. (2013). Analyzing teachers’ feedback practices in response
163-175. doi:10.1080/08957347.2013.793188
doi:10.1080/03055698.2011.598684
Sach, E. (2015). An exploration of teachers' narratives: what are the facilitators and
Sanzo, K., Myran, S., & Caggiano, J. (2015). Formative assessment leadership: Identify,
https://www.ncte.org
249
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M.
Sezen-Barrie, A., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). From the teacher’s eyes: facilitating teachers
181-212. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1274921
http://www.mwera.org
Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D., Yang, L., Makuma, E., Warusavitarana, A.,
Gibson, D.C. (2016). Technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century
learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 58-71. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (EJ1107417)
SRI School Reform Initiative. (2017). Protocols and resources. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolreforminitiative.org
250
Stanley, T., & Alig, J. (2014). The school leader’s guide to formative assessment: Using
data to improve student and teacher achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Staunton, M., & Dann, C. (2016). Formative assessment: improvement, immediacy and
the edge for learning. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(1),
22-34. doi:10.1080/22040552.2016.1187647
(EJ1165040)
(EJ1047338)
Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi
Smart, J., & Marshall, J. (2013). Interactions between classroom discourse, teacher
data. Teacher College Record, 114, 1-29. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(EJ1001991)
251
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based
156. doi:10.3102/0013189X12442801
The Wallace Foundation. (2013, January). The school principal as leader: Guiding
www.wallacefoundation.org.
Tincani, M., & Twyman, J. S. (2016). Enhancing engagement through active student
from http://www.centeril.org
Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2014). The bridge between today's lesson and tomorrow's. Educational
doi:10.1080/03054985.2012.689693
Tridane, M., Belaaouad, S., Benmokhtar, S., Gourja, B., & Radid, M. (2015, July). The
impact of formative assessment of the learning process and the unreliability of the
mark for the summative evaluation. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment: Insights from
learning theory and measurement theory. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved
from https://www.wested.org/online_pubs/resource1307.pdf
Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a
Van der Kleij, F., Vermeulen, J., Schildkamp, K., & Eggen, J. (2015). Integrating data-
Whitney, T., Cooper, J. T., & Lingo, A. S. (2015). Providing student opportunities to
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59, 14-21.
doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.919138
253
Whitney, T., Cooper, J. T., & Lingo, A. S. (2017). Increasing student engagement
commons.wku.edu/ktej/iss2/3
Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from
Wiliam, D. (2014). The right questions, the right way. Educational Leadership, 71(6),
Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded formative assessment (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques
for K-12 classrooms. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
Wood, M. B., Turner, E. E., Civil, M., & Eli, J. A. (Eds.). (2016). Proceedings of the 38th
annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the
Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ attitudes, intentions and practices
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Yin, Y., Tomita, M., & Shavelson, R. (2013). Using formal embedded formative
sessions and of year-long PLC support. Appendix A is divided by session day and
includes agendas, PowerPoint presentations, and materials for each session. The purpose
that teachers will have the necessary feedback to make informed instructional
adjustments. Collaboration in PLCs, where teachers can reflect and provide feedback on
formative assessment and OTR implementation practices, was developed to support and
sustain the new learning. The agenda and materials for PLCs are in the final section of
o Project Goal 1: teachers will write clear student learning targets from state
learning targets.
understanding.
o Project Goal 3: teachers will use the formative assessment feedback they
Time Activity
Allotted
35 Welcome and Introduction
minutes • Group ice breaker
• Facilitator introduction and purpose for professional development
• Go over norms and agenda
• Teacher Formative Assessment Practices survey—Pre-assessment
• Learning targets for the day
60 Introduction to Formative Assessment
minutes • Defining Formative Assessment activity
• Presentation: Benefits of formative assessment, brief overview of
research linking regular formative assessment and student
achievement, research about teacher FA use
• Group discussion—experiences with formative assessment in the
classroom
• Share out—challenges, successes, wonderings
10 Break
Minutes
35 Text Discussion
minutes • Teacher will have preread the article by Tomlinson, C. (2014). The
bridge between today's lesson and tomorrow's. Educational
Leadership, 71(6), 10-14.
• Share thoughts using "Four A's Text Protocol" with table group
and chart three notable statements
• Whole group share out
• FA—visual connections
75 Clear Learning Targets Introduction
minutes • Learning Target Anticipation Guide Part 1
• Presentation: What are learning targets, why they are needed,
connection to FA, what research says, reflect on your LTs
• Basics of clear learning targets, learning how KUDs (Tomlinson)
developing learning targets
• FA—ABC Activity
• Learning target structure and FA practice
• Communicating learning targets to students—share out and
suggestions
258
60 Lunch
minutes
10 Closing Remarks
minutes • Share “Ah Ha” moments and take-aways
• Exit slip FA—Why are clear learning targets important to formative
assessment implementation? Compare your current learning target
practices to what you learned today.
390 min
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
Teacher Formative Assessment Practices Survey
Ratings
Post-Assessment
Pre-Assessment
Assessment
Mid-Term
Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
Learning Targets
1. I usually break down a content standard into
many learning targets (as opposed to 1 or 2)
2. I write all standards into student friendly “I can”
statements.
3. I include knowledge and skills into learning
targets.
4. I make sure my formative assessment questions
align with my learning targets.
5. I communicate the learning targets with students
each lesson.
6. At any given time, my students could state the
learning target for the lesson.
FA Practices
7. I use formative assessment in my class several
times each day.
8. I stop several times during each class to check
whether all students understand what I am
teaching (not just getting a couple of students’
responses).
9. After I ask a question to check for student
understanding, the majority of my students
participate by giving an answer.
10. When I am teaching, I regularly have evidence
about what most of my class is
thinking/understands (as opposed to only a few
students or no students).
11. I have a good command of techniques to
encourage student participation when I ask
questions to check if students understand what I
am teaching.
271
Mid-Term Assessment
Ratings
Post-Assessment
Pre-Assessment
Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
FA Practices continued
12. Students in my class wait to be called on to give
answers (as opposed to calling out the answers).
13. I use thumbs-up/five fingers to check for student
understanding.
14. I use individual whiteboards to check for student
understanding.
15. I use response cards to check for student
understanding.
16. I use choral response to check for student
understanding.
17. I use clickers to check for student
Understanding.
18. I use other technologies to check for student
understanding (websites, apps, etc.).
Procedure:
1. Each member of the group will individually write what they believe are
components of a definition of formative assessment on self- adhesive sticky notes,
one attribute or idea per note.
2. In groups of four or five, share the attributes written on the sticky notes, clustering
similar ideas together.
6. Write your group definition on the poster paper, underlining your key
components.
8. As a whole group, we will craft a final school definition so all staff will have a
common understanding of formative assessment.
273
Four “A”s Text Protocol
Purpose: To explore a text deeply in light of one’s own values and intentions
Procedure:
1. The group reads the text silently, highlighting and writing notes in the
margins or on sticky notes and then answers the following four questions:
• What Assumptions does the author of the text hold?
• What do you Agree with in the text?
• What do you want to Argue with in the text?
• What parts of the text do you want to Aspire to (or Act upon)?
2. In a round, have each person identify one assumption in the text, citing the
text (with page numbers, if appropriate) as evidence.
3. Either continue in rounds for each of the remaining “A”s, taking them one at a
time. What do people want to agree with, argue with, and aspire to (or act
upon) in the text? Try to move seamlessly from one “A” to the next, giving
each “A” enough time for full exploration.
4. End the session with an open discussion framed around a question such as:
What does this mean for our work with students?
Variation:
Groups can add their own “A”s such as Alignment: What is the current reality,
and what is the gap between where we are and our aspirations?
Source: SRI school reform initiative. (2017). Protocols and resources. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolreforminitiative.org/download/four-as-text-protocol/
274
Learning Target Anticipation Guide
Directions: Read each statement carefully and place a check in one of the “Before”
columns that represents your opinion. Place your papers flipped over in the center of
your table. After the lesson, you will revisit your first opinions and place a check in one
of the “After” columns. Be prepared to defend any of your responses.
Before After
Directions: Think of what you know about learning targets. What action verbs do you
associate with learning targets? What do you want your students to be able to do in their
“I can” statements? Each space below represents the letter in which a verb starts. When
time begins, write down as many of verbs associated with learning targets as you can—
up to two verbs per letter.
A _______________________________ N _______________________________
B _______________________________ O _______________________________
C _______________________________ P _______________________________
D _______________________________ Q _______________________________
E _______________________________ R _______________________________
F _______________________________ S _______________________________
G _______________________________ T _______________________________
H _______________________________ U _______________________________
I _______________________________ V _______________________________
J _______________________________ W ______________________________
K _______________________________ X _______________________________
L _______________________________ Y _______________________________
M ______________________________ Z _______________________________
276
Learning Target Verbs by Level of Complexity
Remember–
Understand
Apply
Analyze
Evaluate
Create
Source: Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). New York, NY:
Longman.
277
Learning Target Planning Sheet
Unit
Standard(s):
What standards will I
be addressing in this
unit?
Understand:
General learning
statement or the big
picture concept
What do I want
students to
understand at the end
of the unit?
Do:
“I can” statements
with an action verb
(measurable); skills
or products
What do students
need to do in order to
understand the big
picture concept?
Know:
“I can” statements
(list, name, define,
label…) OR
A list of vocabulary,
facts or rules needed
to know for the “Do”
What do students
have to know to do
the skill or create the
product?
278
Time Activity
Allotted
20 Welcome
minutes • Warm-up question—graphic organizer
• Review of Day 1’s exit slips
• Go over norms
• State learning targets for the day
25 Introduction to OTRs
minutes • Reflection
• Problem with limited feedback during FA
• Partner share
• Presentation: What is OTR, why is it used, benefits, research
linking OTR and participation during formative assessment
10 Break
minutes
60 Writing OTRs—Extended response
minutes • Presentation: Extended response OTRs - how to implement
• Extended response ideas- list with examples
• What to do after collecting OTRs
• Plan and develop three extended response OTRs
• OTRs in action—Video clips of teachers using OTRs
• Setting student expectations and managing OTR materials
60 Lunch
minutes
280
80 Practice teaching with OTRs learned
minutes • Steps to implementing OTRs and implementation rates
• Teachers meet in department PLCs.
Goal: Teach an 8-minute lesson from a 1st marking period standard.
Start with the learning targets and use at least 3 different OTR
strategies you learned today.
10 Closing Remarks
minutes • Share “Ah Ha” moments and take-aways
• FA—exit slip
390 min
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
Written OTRs—Extended Response Handout
Any written OTR formative assessment strategy below can be used to collect an extended
written response from all students to check for understanding. Many of these strategies
can be used as an exit slip. Responses should be collected and reviewed and student
feedback used to determine next steps for instruction.
Exit Slips Before students leave at the end of class, ask them a question or
pose a problem for them to solve. Students record their responses
on a half sheet of paper, an index card, or a sticky note. Collect the
exit slips as the students leave the classroom. Glance through the
exit slips to determine if students generally understand the topic or
whether you need to provide further whole class or small group
instruction in a particular area. Separate the exit slips into piles,
indicating students who have mastered the learning targets or are
well on their way to doing so, students who are making steady
progress, and students who need additional one-on-one or small
group instruction. Exit slips can be used to create groupings for the
next day’s lesson and activities can be planned based on the
students’ responses.
One Sentence Asking students to give you a one sentence summary of what they
Summaries learned provides you with information about what your students
know about a topic. Give students time to reflect on their learning
and encourage students to think about their response. The depth of
the student summaries will indicate their understanding of the topic
or unit to date and provide you with direction for future planning of
lessons. *Alternative: write 3 summaries—one 10-15 words long,
one 30-50 words long, and one 75-100 words long to show their
understanding.
Sentence Stems Sentence prompts can be used to assess students and gather
information about what they understand. Create a sentence starter and
let students respond. For example, they can choose one of the
following:
Above strategies and descriptions selected from Regier, N. (2012). Book Two: 60
Formative Assessment Strategies. Regier Educational Resources.
a. What OTR strategy did you see being used and how did the teachers
implement it?
b. What are some noticings and wonderings you have about your
observations?
a. What OTR strategy did you see being used and how did the teachers
implement it?
b. What are some noticings and wonderings you have about your
observations?
294
3. Watch the video clip: https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/student-daily-
assessment (4:35)
a. What OTR strategy did you see being used and how did the teachers
implement it?
b. What are some noticings and wonderings you have about your
observations?
a. What OTR strategy did you see being used and how did the teachers
implement it?
b. What are some noticings and wonderings you have about your
observations?
295
Implementation Think-Pair-Share Handout
1. Think: a. What are some possible ways that you could implement verbal,
gestural, or written (response cards, individual whiteboards, or extended response)
strategies in your classroom?
2. Pair: Find a partner that matches the symbol you were given on the back of your
paper.
a. Discuss your answers to questions 1a and 1b above.
b. Together:
1) Write three statements that you would like to share from your
discussion.
3. Share your statements and ideas with the whole group when the presenter
signals.
296
Time Activity
Allotted
15 Welcome
minutes • Warm-up questions using Survey Monkey
• Review of Day 2’s exit slips
• State learning targets for the day
•
20 Technological OTRs
minutes • Presentation: Why use tech OTRS, benefits, ideas how to use
• Tech OTR scenario
• Tech and classroom management ideas
75 PD Choices
minutes • Teachers are given a choice of two different PD tech OTR options
Option A: Clickers Option B: Google Forms
• Teachers will attend a presentation about their technology and then
given time to use the tools to create a FA to use in their 1st unit
10 Break
minutes
95 Exploring Other Technological OTRs
minutes • Whole group activities: Kahoot, Mentimeter, Quizlet Live, Padlet,
Socrative, Quizziz, and Plickers
• Teachers will be given a list of other online technology and time to
explore how they could use them in their classrooms as OTRs
60 Lunch
minutes
35 Closing
minutes • Pair-Share Move activity—summary of learning
• Teacher Formative Assessment/OTR Commitment Form
• Next steps for professional development—PLCs
• End of PD evaluation survey on Google Forms
390 min
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
Technological Opportunities to Respond
Purpose: This protocol is designed to help participants understand the meaning of a text,
particularly to see how meaning can be constructed and supported by the ideas of others.
After the group’s presenter shares his or her thinking, interesting similarities and
differences in interpretations will arise as other participants share their thinking without
judgment or debate. The presenter listens and may then change his or her perspective,
add to it, or stick with original ideas without criticism.
Procedure:
1. Have each group select a time keeper and beginning presenter (the presenter
of the group will go first, and then pass the role clockwise).
2. All participants may read the same text, or participants may read different
texts on a common topic for a jigsaw effect.
3. Participants read silently and annotate the text. They mark passages for
discussion so they can quickly locate them later. To promote critical thinking,
design prompts for the discussion that ask participants to include reasons for
selecting a particular passage and evidence that supports a particular point.
6. The presenter gets the final word by sharing how his or her thinking evolved
after listening to others or re-emphasizing what was originally shared.
7. Follow steps 4 - 6 with each additional participant taking the role of presenter.
Procedure:
1. Have all participants stand.
2. When the music starts, all participants walk around high-fiving others.
3. When the music stops, they pair up with the person with whom they are closest.
(2) What are some ideas of how you could collect more feedback from warm-
ups and exit slips by using OTR strategies you learned?
(3) How well do you feel you incorporate effective questioning during your
formative assessment?
(4) What questioning strategies do you plan to integrate into your formative
assessment implementation this school year?
5. The pairs take turns discussing their answers to the question (about 2 minutes).
6. As soon as the music starts again, they must stop talking and start walking around
high-fiving.
Department: ______________________________________________
During the professional development sessions, I learned about (1) clear learning targets to
focus my formative assessment and communicate goals with students; (2) verbal,
gestural, written, and technological OTR strategies to provide all students with an
opportunity to participate during formative assessment; and (3) questioning to further
uncover student understanding during and after OTR responses. My specific plan for
each of the three categories for the _____ - _____ school year will be as follows:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
313
Questioning During and After an OTR Response:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
https://goo.gl/forms/lix6nIFvesuNeDyJ2
315
316
Professional Development Evaluation Handout
Think about the professional development sessions and activities that we have
experienced together during our work on formative assessment OTR implementation.
Duckor, B., & Holmberg, C. (2017). Mastering formative assessment moves: 7 high
leverage practices to advance student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014a). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment
techniques for your classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Himmele, P., & Himmele, W. (2017). Total participation techniques: Making every
student an active learner. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Johnson, J., Uline, C., & Perez, L. (2013). Teaching practices from America's best urban
schools: A guide for school and classroom leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
*Read Chapter 4
Pearsall, G. (2018). Fast and effective assessment: How to reduce your workload and
improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
320
PLC Formative Assessment OTR Reflection
1. List a couple of your student learning targets from the past week.
2. What formative assessment strategies did you use in the past week to check for
student understanding of the learning targets (ex: warm-up, exit slip, formative
questioning, etc.)
3. What was an OTR technique(s) you used to elicit feedback about student
understanding during a formative assessment strategy?
5. What did the feedback you collected reveal about student understanding?
7. What were the results of the instructional adjustments (if you made any)? How
do you/will you know if student understanding improved?
Next steps:
321
PLC Action Plan to Increase OTRs During Formative Assessment
Purpose: This during and after reading strategy helps participants really dig deep into a
text to further reading comprehension and interact with the text.
Procedure:
1. Make groups of 3 - 4 participants.
2. Assign the text to read.
3. Each participant should list several quotes he finds interesting as well as why
he selected that quote.
4. Once finished reading, one person begins by sharing his quote. Share the page
so participants can look on. Only read the quote, NOT why it was selected.
5. Each person in the group has one minute to respond/react to the quote that was
shared.
6. When each person has responded, the original participant shares why he
selected that quote.
7. It is important that participants remain vigilant about the protocol. The person
reading the quote can’t agree or disagree with others that are commenting on
his quote. He must wait until the end.
8. This process rotates to the next group member and another person shares his
quote, following the same protocol outlined above.
Variation:
1. Each group writes a summary about the reading to share with the class.
2. The group selects what they feel is the most important quote in the reading
and shares with the class why they selected that quote.
3. Participants write a quote on one side of an index card with the page number
and their name. They pass the card to people in their group and each
person writes a response on the back of the index cards.
Source: McCollum, K., & Boles, A. (2013). Protocols and Templates for Literacy
Strategies. Retrieved from https://www.maine.gov/doe/cte/professional/templates-
protocols.pdf
324
Appendix A References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.).
New York, NY: Longman.
Brookhart, S. M., & Moss, C. M. (2012). Learning targets: Helping students aim for
understanding in today’s lesson. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Center for Instructional Innovation and Assessment (Producer). (2015, February 9).
Using ABCD cards with Georgianne Connell @ WWU [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yFaZxprJEU (creative commons license)
ECS Region 13. (2017, December 11). Why formative assessment? [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=68&v=xQErAKiSc68
EL Education. (n.d.). Students unpack learning target and discuss academic vocabulary
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://eleducation.org/resources/students-unpack-a-
learning-target-and-discuss-academic-vocabulary
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Checking for understanding digitally during content area
learning. Reading Teacher, 69(3), 281-286.
Haydon, T., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Simonsen, B., & Hawkins, R. (2012). Opportunities
to respond: A key component of effective instruction. Beyond Behavior, 22(1), 23-31.
McCollum, K., & Boles, A. (2013). Protocols and Templates for Literacy Strategies.
Retrieved from https://www.maine.gov/doe/cte/professional/templates-protocols.pdf
SRI school reform initiative. (2017). Protocols and Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolreforminitiative.org/download/four-as-text-protocol/
325
Teaching Channel. (Producer). (n.d.). Daily assessment with tiered exit cards [Video
file]. Retrieved from: https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/student-daily-assessment
Teaching Channel. (Producer). (n.d.). Formative assessment using the U.P.S. strategy
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/ups-strategy-as-
assessment-tool
Teaching Channel. (Producer). (n.d.). Show your cards! [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/show-your-cards-student-assessment
The Teaching Channel. (Producer). (n.d.). Texting to assess learning [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/texting-to-assess-learning
The Teaching Channel. (Producer). (n.d.). Using clickers in classrooms [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/using-clickers-in-classroom
The Teacher Toolkit (Producer). (n.d.). Student response cards [Video file]. Retrieved
from http://www.theteachertoolkit.com/index.php/tool/student-response-cards
References cited in the PowerPoints are found on the last slides of each day’s session.
Pixabay.com
All images and videos on Pixabay are released under the Creative Commons CC0. They
may be used freely for almost any purpose—even commercially and in printed format.
Attribution is appreciated, but not required.
Pexels.com
All photos on Pexels can be used for free for commercial and noncommercial use.
Attribution is appreciated, but not required.
326
Permissions to Use Educational Videos
327
328
License Grant. Edutopia strives to make Edutopia Resources widely available to improve the K-
12 learning process. With that goal in mind, during and subject to the terms and conditions of
these Terms, Edutopia hereby grants you a limited, nonexclusive, non-sublicenseable,
nontransferable, freely revocable license to access and use Edutopia Resources, for personal or
educational purposes, in order to
Observations Reflections
Setting description:
Evidence of adjusting
instruction/change in
instructional plan after FA
implemented.
What instructional
adjustment(s), if any, where
observed as a result of the
information collected from the
formative assessment? (RQ2)
332
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
1. a. In your own words, how would you define formative assessment? (RQ3)
b. If you can, please provide a couple examples of formative assessment.
c. What is the difference between formative assessment and summative
assessment?
2. a. Do you believe there are the benefits of regularly using formative assessment to
check for student understanding?
b. If so, what are they?
c. In your opinion, what is the purpose of formative assessment? (RQ3)
In theory,
3. a. Who should be checked in class for their understanding of a lesson’s learning
goals/targets?
b. When should they be checked?
c. How often should they be checked? (RQ3)
5. a. Discuss how often you typically check for student understanding and why?
(RQ1)
7. a. When you want to check for student understanding, how do you decide what
strategy you want to use? (e.g., what things do you consider?)
b. Are your FAs usually planned or unplanned? Explain. (RQ1)
333
8. a. Do you ever adjust your instruction as a result of student feedback from
formative assessment?
b. If yes, how so? (RQ2)
9. a. Are there challenges that keep you from using formative assessment to check
for student understanding with more fidelity? If so, what are they? (RQ3)
b. Similarly, are there challenges that keep you from using formative assessment
feedback to adjust your instruction with more fidelity? If so, what are they? (RQ3)
10. What instances or circumstances might cause you to use formative assessment (to
check for student understanding and to adjust instruction) with more fidelity in
your classroom? (RQ3)
12. Is there anything else you would like to add that would help me understand your
use of or thoughts about FA to check for student understanding and to adjust
instruction?
334
Appendix E: Teacher Classroom Formative Assessment Log
INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill in this log for a total of three consecutive school days for one class hour of your choosing
within three weeks of receiving this form. If more than one FA strategy was used during the class hour, please document each
and draw a line between them. When you have completed your log, please contact me to pick up your sheets. Thank you!
FA = Formative Assessment
Date 1. FA strategy used to 2. Was the 3. Was the FA 4. With this FA, I 5. What did you learn (if 6. How, if at all, did/will
check for student FA planned given before, checked the anything) as a result of you use the feedback
understanding, if any. prior to the after, or understanding of …. giving the FA? from the FA to adjust
Name or description lesson or during A = all students your instruction?
of strategy. unplanned? learning? M =most students
P or U? B, A, or D? F = few students
(can be multiple) O = one student
(or none)
335
Appendix F: List of Possible Formative Assessment Strategies
Any written OTR formative assessment strategy below can be used to collect an extended
written response from all students to check for understanding. Many of these strategies
can be used as an exit slip. Responses should be collected or reviewed and student
feedback used to determine next steps for instruction.
Exit Slips Before students leave at the end of class, ask them a question or
pose a problem for them to solve. Students record their responses
on a half sheet of paper, an index card, or a sticky note. Collect the
exit slips as the students leave the classroom. Glance through the
exit slips to determine if students generally understand the topic or
whether you need to provide further whole class or small group
instruction in a particular area. Separate the exit slips into piles,
indicating students who have mastered the learning targets or are
well on their way to doing so, students who are making steady
progress, and students who need additional one-on-one or small
group instruction. Exit slips can be used to create groupings for the
next day’s lesson and activities can be planned based on the
students’ responses.
One Sentence Asking students to give you a one sentence summary of what they
Summaries learned provides you with information about what your students
know about a topic. Give students time to reflect on their learning
and encourage students to think about their response. The depth of
the student summaries will indicate their understanding of the topic
or unit to date and provide you with direction for future planning of
lessons. *Alternative: write 3 summaries—one 10-15 words long,
one 30-50 words long, and one 75-100 words long to show their
understanding.
Sentence Stems Sentence prompts can be used to assess students and gather
information about what they understand. Create a sentence starter and
let students respond. For example, they can choose one of the
following:
Above strategies and descriptions selected from Regier, N. (2012). Book Two: 60
Formative Assessment Strategies. Regier Educational Resources.
*With any of the above formative assessments, the teacher can use student feedback to
determine next steps for instruction. Next steps can include stopping the lesson to
address students who are not understanding, placing students into groups based on their
understanding during the current or next class, adding confusing concepts to the next
day’s warm-up for review, or to differentiate future lessons so student learning can be
addressed or extended.
340
Technological Opportunities to Respond