Abstract
With many states moving toward increased accountability for all teachers, special educators, who have long been held accountable through the implementation of individualized education programs and the use of evidence-based practices, have much to offer. Formative instructional practices are evidence-based techniques that are familiar to special educators and can be implemented in classrooms filled with students of all skill and ability levels. Formative instructional practices are the way that teachers and students document evidence of student learning and make instructional decisions based on that evidence. These effective and versatile practices help teachers continuously assess their students, make data-based decisions, and ensure optimal learning. This article suggests that special educators are well positioned to make an important contribution as schools adopt more rigorous standards and the formative instructional practices necessary to guide students to mastery of these standards. An overview of these practices is provided.
Teachers are currently facing many challenges in the midst of a nationwide push toward increased accountability and the introduction of in-depth teacher evaluations under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). For example, NCLB (2001) requires that states must provide evidence that all students are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The NCLB is the 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; 1964). The proposed reauthorization echoed the same accountability language that has been so prevalent in U.S. schools for the past decade. Specifically, the proposed reauthorization calls for all states to create their own accountability systems that include measures of student academic achievement and student growth. Also, the proposed reauthorization calls for evaluations that will inform professional development and incentivize the most effective teachers and leaders to work with the most vulnerable children (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions, 2013).
In addition to the reauthorization of ESEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) is also expected to be reauthorized in the near future. There have been efforts to more closely align the IDEA with NCLB, which could result in raised standards for students with disabilities and more stringent accountability for all teachers who educate students with disabilities. This includes most teachers in any school district, given that approximately 80% of students classified as having a disability receive at least part of their education in a general education setting for part of the school day (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Now, more than ever, general education teachers and special education teachers need to work together to maximize achievement for all students. Many of the practices widely used in the special education profession for the past several decades can support all teachers in raising academic achievement for every child while meeting the demands of rigorous teacher accountability measures. Practices such as formative assessment, ongoing progress monitoring, multitiered systems of academic and behavior support, instructional strategies to increase active student responding, and explicit instruction can be valuable tools for any teacher who wants to improve student outcomes. Though the names of some of these practices have changed over time, the core values of special education and the underlying mechanisms of best practice remain the same. Ultimately, special education professionals have a wealth of knowledge to offer as educators face the challenges posed in the 21st century.
This article discusses the use of formative instructional practices (FIP) to enhance educational outcomes for all students. Formative instructional practices are “the formal and informal ways that teachers and students gather and respond to evidence of student learning” (Pearson & Battelle for Kids, 2012, p. 5). Formative instructional practices refer not only to formative assessment (i.e., assessment for learning) but also to the practices that teachers use over time in response to data they and their students have collected.
It can be argued that FIP is not a new concept for special educators; in fact, IDEA (2004) mandates that special education teachers frequently and consistently monitor and measure student progress on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives. Additionally, educators who work with students with disabilities must make data-based decisions and modify instruction based on student needs. In other words, those who effectively teach students with disabilities must constantly collect and review sources of formal and informal data to ensure that the individual needs of each child are being met and to provide a free and appropriate public education (20 U.S.C. 1401 [25], § 300.14). This is an ongoing process and educators who work with children with disabilities cannot afford to wait the length of an entire grading period to discover that the student is not making progress. This is not to say that other forms of instruction and assessment should be abandoned, but FIP can be an extremely valuable tool in a practitioner’s arsenal.
Assessment: It’s All About How the Results Are Used
There are generally two uses of assessment results: summative and formative (see Table 1). Summative assessments provide evidence of student achievement for the purposes of making a judgment about student competence or program effectiveness (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2008). These assessments are commonly used at the end of instruction. Summative assessments are likely to occur at the end of a course or an instructional unit and may include content from multiple lessons. On the other hand, formative assessments include the formal and informal practices that teachers and students use to gather evidence for the purposes of improving teaching and learning (Shepard, 2008). Formative assessments are generally used as ongoing, short-term assessments that are administered during and following individual lessons. Ultimately, the way assessment results are used is what determines which category the assessment falls within. Stiggins (2002) distinguished between the two by defining summative assessments as assessments of learning (i.e., the information is used to determine if students demonstrate mastery of content or skills), whereas formative assessments are assessments for learning, allowing teachers and students to use the information to make meaningful, immediate changes to instruction if the data demonstrate that such changes are needed.
Examples, Advantages, and Limitations of Summative and Formative Assessment.
Summative Assessments
Historically, educators have focused on the results of summative assessment measures for the purposes of grading or as part of accountability systems. By definition, the results of summative assessments are used to make a judgment about student learning, but these tests are only a snapshot of what the student has learned at any given point in time (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2008). In many states, these summative measures are ultimately used to determine graduation eligibility, assign school ratings, and measure teacher performance. Some common examples of summative assessments include performance on state achievement tests and class or course grades. Typically, the results of such assessments are reported to students and families in the form of a formal assessment report or report card. Additionally, results of high-stakes achievement tests are also available to the public as part of district and building report cards.
Advantages of Summative Assessment
There are several advantages to using summative assessments. For example, results from achievement tests are often used to make district-level or schoolwide decisions based on how many students are meeting standards in any given content area or grade level. Administrators can use this information to make important decisions regarding curriculum adoption and to design professional development opportunities.
Large-scale summative assessments (e.g., statewide, standards-based tests; formal achievement tests), which have been statistically validated, offer another advantage. They tend to be more standardized and structured when compared to classroom-based assessments, whether formative or summative. Thus, they allow for formal comparisons across districts, schools, and classes.
Limitations to Summative Assessment
Although many states are using summative assessment (i.e., state achievement tests) to evaluate teacher effectiveness, there are several disadvantages of relying solely on summative assessments. For instance, one of the main disadvantages of using these types of assessments to measure teacher effectiveness is that in many states there is little to no attention to student growth. Therefore, unfair comparisons are made between and among subgroups of students (e.g., urban vs. suburban populations, students with and without disabilities). Additionally, results of state achievement tests are often received several months after the assessment is completed. Therefore, administrators and educators gain access to this information too late to make any meaningful and sustained changes for the current or even upcoming academic year. Further, although the reports for summative assessments are usually communicated in a manner that allows for quick analysis, the data may only describe general areas of weakness for the school, class, or individual students. Oftentimes, the results link student performance to a specific standard but may not precisely describe the component skills, or specific learning targets, the student has yet to master. Given that summative assessments typically encompass many skills, it can be difficult to pinpoint exact areas of need. Summative assessments certainly hold an important place in the educational arena, but educators cannot rely solely on these assessments to make instructional decisions if they want to ensure their students are making adequate progress.
Formative Assessments
In contrast to summative assessment, formative assessment is an ongoing process in which educators collect valuable information while instruction is occurring (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2008). The results of these assessments are used to inform instruction prior to the administration of summative assessments. Formative assessment can include formal or informal feedback on student performance, as long as the ultimate goal is to improve and accelerate learning during instruction (Sadler, 1998). The key concept in the formative assessment process is that information is gained immediately and the teacher and student use the information to make adjustments in order to form new learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Popham, 1987; Shepard, 2008).
Formal Versus Informal Formative Assessment
There are two categories of formative assessment: formal and informal. Formal formative assessments are typically more structured and occur at prespecified times (Ruiz-Primo, 2011). The most common formal formative assessments are often referred to as benchmark, short-cycle, and interim assessments (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2008). Examples of such assessments include standardized curriculum-based measurement (e.g., AIMSweb, DIBELS) and common assessments developed by teacher teams wherein efforts have been made to ensure they are valid and reliable. Informal assessments, on the other hand, use everyday learning activities as potential assessment opportunities. Informal assessments can yield multiple sources of evidence, can be collected over time to create a complete picture of student understanding, and can occur during any student-teacher or student-student interaction (Ruiz-Primo, 2011). Some common examples of these informal formative assessments used in many special education and general education settings include exit slips, class question-answer sessions, discussions, independent and group work activities, and homework assignments. These are just a few examples, but it is important to remember that any interaction and response can be used for the purpose of formative assessment. Ultimately, it is how the information is used, not how it is gathered, that makes and assessment formative or not.
Advantages of Formative Assessment
There are several advantages to using a formative assessment approach. First and foremost, the information obtained from formative assessments is timely; it helps teachers identify potential areas of difficulty for students prior to summative assessments. If educators can identify specific students who are struggling with the content, reteaching and/or intervention can occur before introducing more challenging content. Additionally, if the formative assessment reveals that many students are struggling with the content, this could indicate that the teacher needs to adjust how the content is presented and the instructional conditions may need to be altered. Formative assessment results can also be used strategically by teachers to group students for instruction (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2008).
The implementation and use of an informal formative assessment approach does not require significant financial investment, nor does it require adoption of prescribed materials. Assessments and curriculum materials can be costly, and oftentimes, prepackaged materials may not be fully aligned with the academic standards. Recently, there have been sweeping, frequent changes in state-adopted standards (i.e., adoption of Common Core State Standards), and many school districts have spent large amounts of resources to purchase new materials to adapt to these changes. On the other hand, the materials needed for formative assessment are readily available, and standards alignment can be ensured by teachers as they determine the content of assessments. Given that formative assessments are ongoing, are classroom based, and can be informal, teachers do not need to spend a wealth of time creating and validating complex test items.
Another advantage to using a formative assessment approach is that it does not require a drastic departure from what many teachers are already doing (Dorn, 2010). Effective teachers currently base decisions on student responses to classroom activities and adjust instruction based on evidence of student learning collected or observed. This process may be a naturally occurring process for many teachers, but they may not define it as “formative assessment.” Many teachers may need to be more intentional about or supplement what they are currently doing to increase the accuracy of their formative assessment; however, with a few minor adjustments and the addition of some evidence-based practices, they will see a major improvement in student outcomes.
Limitations of Formative Assessment
If done well, formative assessment has few drawbacks. If teachers are not already collecting formative assessment data, it can take some training and practice to learn how to create frequent opportunities for standards-based formative assessment, gather formative assessment data efficiently, and most important, analyze the information and make instructional decisions. Unfortunately, many teachers who collect assessment data may not have the training to analyze the data to make meaningful, immediate changes to instruction. However, teachers who spend the time to learn how to use formative instructional practices will see exponential returns on their investment. Rather than waiting to discover that students are not mastering the content, educators can proactively intervene before the content becomes too cumulative or an intensive, costly intervention is needed.
Beyond Formative Assessment
Certainly, the numerous advantages of formative assessment are clear; however, to be most effective, teachers must embrace the inextricable link between assessment and instruction. For the purposes of this article, and throughout this special issue, we will refer to classroom assessment practices that formatively guide instruction decisions as formative instructional practices, or FIP. To go beyond formative assessment and implement formative instructional practices, Chappuis, Chappuis, and Stiggins (2009) recommended the following. First, teachers must identify the standards or objectives to be learned. All of the activities to gather formative evidence of student learning must be aligned with the identified standards and learning targets and must match what is taught. Directly after the task or assessment has been completed, the teacher needs to analyze the information to determine which students may need additional instruction, practice, or support. The information should also be analyzed to pinpoint what content or concepts the students may need additional support with. At the heart of formative instructional practices is the immediacy of effective feedback. Therefore, the teacher must be able to access and evaluate the results rapidly, so that intervention can occur quickly when needed, and meaningful changes are not delayed. Evidence of student learning should ultimately inform what comes next in the learning for each student; the analysis of the formative assessment must yield actionable steps. Finally, students must be involved throughout the formative assessment process, from the gathering of data to its analysis and determination of next steps. Formative instructional practices should facilitate changes in both teacher and student behavior in order to maximize student growth and learning.
Formative instructional practices embed formative assessment in a larger set of practices that include (a) identification and communication of clear learning targets, (b) collection and documentation of evidence of student learning, (c) provision of effective feedback to facilitate student growth and understanding, and (d) student and peer involvement in the assessment and feedback process. Again, it is all about how the information from an assessment is used. In other words, if results from assessments are used to inform instruction and instructional practices are designed to gather information about student learning during learning, then a FIP approach is being implemented.
The Bottom Line in Assessment
Effective educators use multiple measures and sources of information to make decisions. As such, both formative and summative assessments are necessary and can yield valuable information for administrators, educators, parents, students, and other stakeholders. The key is that the assessments are of high quality and linked to specific learning targets. Chappuis et al. (2009) provided recommendations for ensuring assessments have the potential to inform decisions. First, a clear purpose for the assessment must be defined. Specifically, Chappuis et al. recommended answering the following questions: “Who will use the results?” and “What decisions will be informed by the assessment?” Second, clear learning targets must be identified and categorized as knowledge, reasoning, performance, or product targets (Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012). These target types represent various levels of understanding and tasks that range from basic retention of factual information through creation of a product based on higher-order thinking. It is important to provide a range of assessment opportunities to measure the depth of student understanding to ensure the assessments align with the rigor of the new national and state standards. Third, the assessment must also be designed in a way that is valid; specifically, the assessment method should minimize bias, should be constructed to measure what has been taught, and should match the identified learning targets. Fourth, the results of the assessment should be communicated in a timely manner and described in a way that will maximize use for the identified purposes. Finally, students should be highly involved in the assessment process.
FIP: Not a New Idea for Special Educators
Although FIP-like practices have long been emphasized within special education, the push to implement such practices has never been stronger than it is today. Historically, the emphasis on formative assessment has been related to the design of the IEP and the need to continuously collect data on how students are progressing toward identified goals. Special education legislation has always held special education teachers and practitioners accountable for documenting student progress, and a FIP approach lends itself well to this responsibility. With the enactment of NCLB (2001), AYP, student growth measures, and Common Core State Standards, a clear emphasis is being placed on teaching rigorous academic content to students of all ability and skill levels across multiple subject areas. In order for students to meet these new academic demands, teachers will need to become familiar with what needs be learned and how to guide student learning through the use of classroom-based formative assessments. Special education professionals can play an important role in supporting and assisting general education teachers through the wave of new education policy.
How Special Educators Can Support Other Teachers
Special education professionals are well versed in defining target behaviors, creating data collection tools, and analyzing data. Special education professionals have specialized training in operationally defining behaviors and creating descriptions that are observable and measurable within IEP goals and objectives. Special education teachers are also required to report student progress on IEP goals and objectives more frequently than at the end of a unit or grading term as is the usual expectation of general education teachers. Additionally, special education teachers are skilled at collecting various forms of data in the spirit of IDEA-mandated multifactored evaluations. Special education teachers are often called upon to collect data on student behavior, academic progress, discrete trials, organization and study skills, and numerous other skills and behaviors. Given that special education is highly individualized, the data collected for each student vary based on the individual needs of each student. Therefore, special education teachers are uniquely poised to assist other teachers in designing clear learning targets, developing efficient data collection instruments, and analyzing data to inform classroom practice.
Special education teachers are also trained in the technology of teaching and in accommodating the needs of struggling learners. Special education teachers are constantly modifying their instruction based on evidence of student learning collected through formal and informal responses and assessment. Additionally, special educators are experts in creating increased opportunities for student responses during instructional time. Given that many students with disabilities are behind their typical peers, it is best practice to assess learning frequently and increase opportunities for practice and feedback during lessons in order to accelerate learning and ensure instructional time is used efficiently. General education teachers could benefit greatly from recruiting special education teachers to assist with the design and implementation practices that could be used during lessons to increase formative assessment opportunities. For example, special educators are well versed in designing activities to increase active student responding, such as guided practice, response cards, choral responding, exit slips, guided notes, and structured worksheets, all of which generate valuable data regarding student learning during instruction.
Multitiered systems of academic and behavior support (e.g., response to intervention, multitiered systems of support, positive behavioral interventions and supports) are scientifically based, prereferral intervention models that are rooted in the world of special education. Special educators are increasingly called to deliver instruction in all tiers of intervention but with a distinctive emphasis in tiers that call for the most intensive intervention. Given that new accountability measures require that all children must demonstrate AYP, FIP can be used to create smaller-scale multitiered systems of academic and behavior support models within every classroom, not just special education classrooms. Special education teachers and general education teachers can work together to analyze formative assessment data and create tiered instruction to ensure student progress. Student groups, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, can be created strategically based on the level of performance in relation to identified learning targets, and instruction can be tailored to meet every student’s needs. Special education professionals are masters at creating lessons that utilize a differentiated instruction approach and can support general education teachers in managing the instructional conditions for large classes.
Coteaching arrangements and collaborative models between special education and general education are common practice in many districts. Coteaching models can easily be adjusted to incorporate a FIP approach. Friend and Bursuck (2009) described various coteaching approaches and these configurations can be structured to maximize formative assessment data collection and analysis. For example, in the one-teach, one-observe approach, one teacher can lead large group instruction while the other observes student responses and collects informal data to inform instruction. In station teaching, students can be grouped homogenously based on skills, and instruction can be designed accordingly. Within the parallel teaching approach, opportunities for active student responding can be drastically increased and student responses can be more closely observed. These are just a few examples, and the possibilities for increasing the success for effectively implementing formative instructional practices can be increased substantially in a coteaching environment. See Figure 1 for a fictional illustration of how coteachers can work together to implement FIP.
Fictional illustration of formative instructional practices in a coteaching arrangement.
Conclusion
The NCLB (2001) legislation and the inclusion movement have set the stage for moving special education and general education toward each other. All teachers are accountable for educating all students, including those with disabilities. New legislation and policies call for increasingly rigorous content standards, which increases the importance of the role of the content specialist/general education teacher. Additionally, adoption of more rigorous standards will require individualized instruction for many students, increased opportunities for student responding, and frequent multifaceted assessments. Educators will need to be proactive in identifying and addressing the needs of students who are not meeting grade-level standards prior to the administration of high-stakes achievement tests, and this is not a task that can be accomplished through one specialization or isolated practice. The utilization of FIP, combined with collaboration among specialties, is an extremely valuable way to meet these demands. Traditional whole-class instruction and assessment data gathered from summative assessments are no longer adequate; educators must shift their thinking to effectively design and implement a cohesive and continuous process of assessment that informs instructional change daily.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.